'Only few' != zero, and do you have a link to this Chinese research, please.
May be you should start to read mainstream newspapers.
All reported the reason why we don't need to wear masks outdoor. Switzerland state explicitely communicated when ending the lockdown.
I hope that you have left spoon feed age at least!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/…-wiped-out-lockdown-gains
Of 1,400 Israelis diagnosed with COVID-19 last month, 657 (47 percent) were infected in schools. Now 2,026 students, teachers, and staff have it, and 28,147 are quarantined.
Of 1,400 Israelis diagnosed with COVID-19 last month, 657 (47 percent) were infected in schools.
No two countries are equal. Except north Switzerland & Germany that show a very similar reaction.
Now two months after end of lock down we see most cases due to super spreaders or inadequate locations like meat factories of clubs..some restaurants. Now here some clubs were shout down again. Schools are a risk too, especially in winter where the windows must stay closed.
But our death rate is still very low < 1/day also ICU usage and that's what counts. Do not get fooled by diagnosed cases even 10x might just be a picture of better testing an in fact not a real steep increase. In the USA despite 2.5x increase in cases the death rate (Thanks to Gilead crap you have to add one more week now for the lag behind cases) only increased by 30% (see worldometer).
Please do not believe that a one way mask protects you from getting CoV-19. But it can reduce the virus load by a factor of 3 as only small droplets will pass. You should not stay - long time - indoor in closed rooms, elevators ( we did shut down many short range ones).
Finally to have enough courage to challenge any people that frequently cough in public instead of staying home and isolate.
As for your phrenology about the ratios of brain to body, well let's just say your are uneducated.
Not phrenology. I meant compared to other species.
May be you should start to read mainstream newspapers.
Still no link then?
I think you are confusing 'no transmission' with a lower risk of transmission. A minor, yet typical, misrepresentation of the facts.
Although I'll be happy to admit my error if you are able to give a link to a mainstream newspaper that claims the same...
COVID-19 testing throughput is fast at some locations. The Emory hospital tested me at their specialized COVID location. They require a test no longer than three days prior to surgery. The test was administered at 1:48 p.m. and the results posted at 11:50 p.m. the same day. They are running a night shift.
It might not be as fast for other labs. This location is run by the hospital. The people there know they have a deadline to meet for their own hospital. When you come in, they ask you if this is for a procedure (surgery) or because you think you might be infected. They send you to a booth quickly. There were 20 booths. I said "this would work better outside, with drive in testing." The lady at admission said, "the weather around here just doesn't allow that." I think she said they tried it.
10-hour turnaround is good, but it would be much better if we had self administered tests available at any pharmacy that produce results in 15 minutes. As I said, researchers are working on that. The tests will cost a few dollars, I think. They use saliva rather than a nasal swab, so there is no discomfort. That could make a big difference to society. It would allow many more people to go back to work or school with a sense of security. At a grocery store they could have the whole staff test themselves every day. Or all the kids in a school test themselves every day. Or at least, every Monday. If it is cheap enough, every day would be good. This would work well if false negatives were rare. False positives are okay. Especially if you can just take two more tests right away and vote 2 out of 3.
I think you are confusing 'no transmission' with a lower risk of transmission. A minor, yet typical, misrepresentation of the facts.
There is absolutely no confusion. If you have 32000 cases and 3 out of them could not be assigned indoor then there is is not risk to get it out door if you stick to the distance rules. Of course if you kiss a sick person outdoor then this violates the rule... But rules are made for normal people. If you tell it the other way round then you only fear people and finally make them obedient. But from your behavior I can deduce that this is what you prefer.
As said: I will not spoon feed you as your intentions are obvious.
If you have 32000 cases and 3 out of them could not be assigned indoor then there is is not risk to get it out door if you stick to the distance rules.
I suppose that is true if you have 32,000 cases and only 3 are not indoors. Is that the case? Where did you get that information? Who managed to track down 32,000 cases to the source with that kind of assurance? It sounds impossible to me. In China, they made a terrific effort to determine the cause of many cases, indoor or outdoor, but I do not think they had 32,000 examples. Furthermore, no matter how well you track, there is a very high percent of cases where no one knows where they came from, or where the infection occurred. There could be a large number outdoors.
In Asia, nearly everyone wears a mask, indoor, outdoor, on a train platform, at the beach -- anywhere you might encounter a person. (But not on a country road in the middle of nowhere.) So, there is no way of telling how likely it is there will be an infection outdoors with no mask. There are no test cases to work with. There are no examples of people in crowds outdoors with no mask.
Taking one thing and another, I would say your assertion would be hard to prove, and the margin of error must be large.
In Asia, nearly everyone wears a mask, indoor, outdoor, on a train platform, at the beach -- anywhere you might encounter a person.
This is obvious why: 90% commute by underground walkways/ subways where the 2 meter rule is violated and also the dilution by ventilation is to low and most bad the air flow is both way up and down.
Outdoor in Tokyo you stop every crossing inside a crowd the same e.g. on the Ginza walkway. Worst is Kaminarimon on Saturday/Sunday it feels like a fish in a can.
In the high infection phase I also did wear a mask (FP95!) from the parking to the shops and back. A normal mask will, not protect you inside a shop but may protect others if you have it!
So its a number game. The less new cases/day you find the smaller your risk. 200 cases/day for Tokyo is very low as it is far more crowded than Switzerland that also has about the same case number/day.
We did run 6 weeks without masks in public trains without any increase in cases. But now more people commute again and there is a small increase. On my side I would punish-high fine/jail everybody moving outdoor with symptoms. This would be the most effective measurement. I would even more severely punish all employer that force people with symptoms to work.
As I said quite a few times: No two countries are equal. Rules are rules for some area not for the world. But even in Tokyo a mask will not protect you unless its at least an FP95 one and that's an expensive way to live without an UV decontamination lamp. So wearing an outdoor mask is a kind of social identity only unless all infected do walk around you will not really profit...
This is obvious why: 90% commute by underground walkways/ subways where the 2 meter rule is violated and also the dilution by ventilation is to low and most bad the air flow is both way up and down.
Where did you get that 90% number? What part of Asia do you refer to? In Japan, roughly half the working population commutes by rail according to one survey:
https://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0011.html
A large fraction of the population does not commute, or it is retired and does not work. Most people I know are farmers. They don't go anywhere. Others, such as Mizuno, walk to work.
How do you know that the 2 meter rule is violated? I have been on many Japanese trains in the morning where they could have maintained a large distance between people, in places like Hiroshima. How do you know the ventilation is low? Back in the day, they used to open the windows. I suppose they could do that now. The windows still open on the trains I have been on.
But even in Tokyo a mask will not protect you unless its at least an FP95 one
That is nonsense. Ordinary people in Japan wear cloth or disposable masks, not FP95 ones. For the last month, practically no one in Tokyo has been infected except by going to bars and karaoke joints. Most infections have been tracked, and nearly all from those sources. Why they have not closed the bars is beyond me.
It seems to me you are pulling facts and numbers out of thin air.
Anyway, it is clear the masks prevent infection, indoors and outdoors. Even if there were few outdoor infections, with a population of 126 million, there would be hundreds a day in Japan if people did not wear masks, or if masks did not prevent nearly all infections both indoors and outdoors.
As I said quite a few times: No two countries are equal. Rules are rules for some area not for the world. But even in Tokyo a mask will not protect you unless its at least an FP95 one and that's an expensive way to live without an UV decontamination lamp. So wearing an outdoor mask is a kind of social identity only unless all infected do walk around you will not really profit...
There are some things we do (like getting vaccinated and wearing masks) that are good for us and everyone else if only most people do them.
This is a classic case where altrusim benefits society - because if everyone is altruistic everyone benefits - even though there may be little personal benefit (in case of vaccines there is personal benefit - as those misguided parents who did not give their children MMR are now finding out).
It is not about social identity. It is the same reason we do not do fly-tipping. One person doing this does not really matter and may save effort or money. If everyone does it, then it is bad for everyone.
There is a whole load of game theory showing that without this type of reciprocal trusting altrusim players will achieve low scores on typical non-zero-sum games. evolution has made humans pretty good at altrusim, when not in fight or flight mode.
The tragedy of the modern pro-nationalistic populism is the poisonous idea that international relations is a zero-sum game. It is not. Everyone does better with cooperation, and that is why tit for tat (with each side always at least slightly biassed in their own favour) is a bad strategy. That does not say you should ignore bad behaviour, or excuse it. Just that you need to be looking for and encouraging good behaviour more than you punish bad behaviour. A case in point is Iran where a hostile response to them empowers the hard liners internally and benefits no-one - unless you believe that by reducing a country to poverty you will make it more likely to behave well. In fact the opposite is universally true.
How do you know that the 2 meter rule is violated? I have been on many Japanese trains in the morning where they could have maintained a large distance between people, in places like Hiroshima. How do you know the ventilation is low? Back in the day, they used to open the windows. I suppose they could do that now. The windows still open on the trains I have been on.
Most Tokyo suburban trains have aircon now. I'm not sure that is helpful - but (I just had a count-up) of the 18 people I know well in Tokyo 6 are retired, 7 take the train to work, 1 walks, 1 gets chauffeured, and the rest go to school on the buses or by taxi.
A (July 14) interview with Dr. Zelenko on HCQ treatment of Covid-19 --
University of Basel
Paper entitled "Why lopinavir and HCQ do not work on Covid-19"
Most Tokyo suburban trains have aircon now.
They all had air conditioning back in the day, but you could still open the windows. I guess the Tokyo trains are modern and sealed, but the local trains in Hiroshima are old. Of course the Shinkansen trains are sealed.
I'll bet they have improved the ventilation somehow.
Here is an article about this in English, with a video in Japanese in which the author Tsubokura recommends train windows be opened. I guess that means many of them still can be opened.
A (July 14) interview with Dr. Zelenko on HCQ treatment of Covid-19 --
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Thx Lou. Very informative. This Dr. Zelenko is just not going to back down. Got to admire the guy for sticking to his guns in the face of this massive propaganda (as he describes it) assault against HCQ. Learned a couple new things:
-have to give within the first 5 days when the virus is still at low levels...which we already knew. The 6th day the virus makes it's move.
-For prophylaxis he gives the same dose as for malaria prevention (200mg/day 5days).
-he is so confident now of it's effectiveness (he is taking it), he does not wear a mask.
-feels there are now 100,000-200,000 needless deaths, because his treatment was not widely adopted.
-when the FDA imposed the HCQ Emergency Use Authorization, it actually handicapped doctors from using for out-patient.
-Now, with the FDA's retracting the EUA, they have the authority to use.
-However, they are not doing so because their employers (Health Care Systems) have forbidden it's use....he is an independent practice (self employed)
-Sometimes he is not able to find HCQ, and has to use quercitin instead
-his recently co-authored study purposely stacked the deck against HCQ, by mixing healthy/sick in the control group, but only the sick in the active group.
-big proponent of "real world experience".
I think President Trump should appoint Dr Zelenko as his top General in the War against C.V.
He reminds me of the take charge
General Norman Schwarzkopf of
the gulf war.
-have to give within the first 5 days when the virus is still at low levels...which we already knew. The 6th day the virus makes it's move.
-For prophylaxis he gives the same dose as for malaria prevention (200mg/day 5days).
-he is so confident now of it's effectiveness (he is taking it), he does not wear a mask.
Shane, it is possible that HCQ is a helpful prophylactic at this level.
But think - what data do you need to know this is true? You need to give it - as prophylactic - to a large number of people who do not have COVID. You then need to use the fact that over time few get COVID, or few get severe COVID, as evidence.
To do this you need to compare your intervention with a similar cohort who have no intervention. Dr. Z's patients are very atypical, much less likley to have (any) COVID symptoms because much younger than typical.
Shane you know all these things, yet you go on thinking that because Dr. Z is unswerving in his belief it must therefore have more merit. Why? If Dr. Z acknowledges all the above and provided evidnce it would be different.
Since masks do not (hardly) protect the wearer but protect others he is simply betting the lives of others on his being right by not wearing a mask.
What is it about politics that makes it impossiblke for so many people 9including family GPs like Zelencko) to look clearly and what would be evidence and then try to get it.
HCQ for (post-exposure) prophylaxis does not work.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
Here is RCT evidence that HCQ - given fast and at high initial dose so that it is active sooner - does not significantly alter the rates at which patients contract COVID after a high-risk exposure incident. No question here of mortality results that could be contaminated due to side effects, these were not a problem in this case (though they were observed in some patients).
Specifically, Zelencko might still claim that HCQ reduces COVID severity when used prophylatically at < 5 days from exposure - though in that case you'd also expect it to reduce the number of people who actually contract it as well, which from this study does not appear to happen to any great extent.
There is the possibility that it works prophylatically when given much earlier, before exposure.
There still also remains the possibility of a small protective effect that this study was too under-powered to measure, it would reliably detect a 50% or more reduction in COVID. Even at 50% reduction, you would want as a physician to wear a mask to protect your patients.
It looks as though therefore Dr. Z is putting patients at risk by not wearing a mask, and he is either not reviewing other people's experience, or not understanding its significance, or (quite likley) just obstinately convinced he is right and not interested in any contrary evidence. That happens.
A very balanced discussion of this trial: it is not a death blow for HCQ prophylaxis but certainly it is strong negative evidence for any use post-exposure.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/…rc_curatedRelated_article
EDIT: they checked severity as well:
Among participants who were symptomatic at day 14, the median symptom-severity score (on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater severity) was 2.8 (interquartile range, 1.6 to 5.0) in those receiving hydroxychloroquine and 2.7 (interquartile range, 1.4 to 4.8) in those receiving placebo (P=0.34).
THH
