h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I struggled to understand why people did not simply
buy a
full face mask and P100 or NBC filters (cost: $100
for
milsurp, up to $600 tops for new) and return to work.
Or, if
you prefer, have government debt issue one such
mask to
every person. This would enable people to resume
work
immediately.
The problem is that effective masks are "scary".
Nobody
wants to wear a full face covering mask that looks
like
something out of a disaster movie. Nobody wants to
be
the bad guy in the black mask.
This idea is to make these masks fashionable and
not
"scary", by simply making them any color other than
black.
Pastel colors?
Yes.
Tweed and/or Paisley? Yes. Pink with "Hello Kitty"
iconography? Yes. Big and clear with "Harry Potter"
"bubble-head charm kit" "covidus blockus" branding?
Sure
why not. Rainbow color? Yes. Iridescent glitter wrap?
Yes. Grey? Sure, at least it's not flat black.
"Darth Vader" helmet? Probably not.
The goal of this idea is to allow people to return to
normal life immediately, at reasonable cost (i.e. a
week's wages spent on PPE).
Superhero Suit incorporating Protective Mask
Superhero_20Suit_20...20Protective_20Mask
"Friendly" ? Pah ... what rubbish ... [8th of 7, Apr 11 2020]
The Hot Zone
https://www.amazon....d=1587242874&sr=8-1
Sobering [8th of 7, Apr 18 2020]
Immortality Tax
Immortality_20Tax
Governments are already complicit in mortality [sninctown, Apr 19 2020]
ghoulish hat
https://drive.googl...O2HLI-zbGo_Ru88QqWn
[not_morrison_rm, May 02 2020]
corono virus
https://drive.googl...Xm2FynYMGlZl4Hg8m2T
or, was it the other way round, i forget [not_morrison_rm, May 02 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
// simply buy a full face mask ... and return to work. // |
|
| |
That's because you have obviously never done the full NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) training courses that all NATO servicepersons receive. Had you done so, you would understand that protection requires not merely a mask, but a full suit, and rigorous decontamination procedures, for which a similarly trained team is needed. Issues such as short filter life are rarely immediately apparent to the uninitiated. A substantial amount of unwavering self-discipline is needed, which someone without training will lack; even acute fear of a pathogen may not be enough. One mistake can cost you your life. |
|
| |
// Nobody wants to be the bad guy in the black mask. // |
|
| |
Oh, how very wrong you are. |
|
| |
Why not just have a "Darth Vader" mask as suggested in our Prior Art ? <link>. |
|
| |
Many Pointy Haired Bosses would rejoice in the opportunity to dress like Darth. The breastplate with the flashing lights, long black cloak, gloves and boots merely add to the aura ... |
|
| |
We're not dealing with contamination here, only with
short-lived virus particulates. Even if people don't
decontaminate at all, I'd speculate that the mask
would reduce face-touching and particle-inhalation
enough to abruptly end the pandemic. |
|
| |
Ahhh, how refreshing it must be to live in such a fact-free environment ... |
|
| |
Scenario: Come home from work, covered in virus particles. Sanitize hands. Remove mask, the exterior of which is also contaminated ... now you need to decontaminate your hands again. Oh, and decontaminate the mask before the next use, because the virus may well "creep" into the warm, moist interior while it's sitting on the table in your hallway ... |
|
| |
Your clothing and other exposed skin (neck, etc) are still contaminated. Small air movements can convey virus particles to mucous membranes. Any contact remains dangerous ... |
|
| |
There are some MIL documents that are freely downloadable that we'll link to, they give gruesome details ... |
|
| |
Even medics manage better than what you've described, and they make a pretty poor show of it - that can be deduced from the prevalence of HAINs* ... |
|
| |
You will note that our idea for masks is purely an attempt to exploit the gullible for petty financial gain, and makes no pretence of effective prophylaxis. |
|
| |
*Hospital Acquired INfections ... iatrogenic illnesses** .... |
|
| |
** "Disease caused by physicians" |
|
| |
Google for "nato cbrn decontamination ". It's all there, take your pick. |
|
| |
The goal isn't total containment (as is the case for
cbrn contamination); the goal is to decrease the
infection rate, from each infected spreading it to ~3
non-infected (current estimates) to less than 1.
Seems reasonable that P100 filters on inhalation
(ideally also on exhalation), combined with a full
face shield, would provide more than 80% decrease
in the infection rate which is more than sufficient to
stop the spread. Aiming for 100% decontamination
via full CBRN procedures is ridiculously excessive
and unecessary. |
|
| |
It will slow the spread, not stop it. |
|
| |
It's extremely infectious, there are biological reservoirs (recent data shows felids are susceptibe WE WARNED YOU, WE WARNED YOU, DID YOU LISTEN ? THE CATS, EVIL, FULL OF GERMS, KILLERS, OH, WE TOLD YOU, NOW LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENED, CATS, PLAGUE CARRIERS, ARGLEARGHLEARGLGE <Coughing and wheezing/>) and such viruses are endemic in the environment. |
|
| |
Sooner or later, everyone will be exposed, and those who are susceptible will develop infections of varying degrees of severity. Plus it mutates constantly so no broad spectrum vaccine is possible. Only full aseptic procedures can stop it. Anything else just slows it a little. |
|
| |
These scenarios have been wargamed since the 1940s. All the data are out there. The science is pretty damned solid. |
|
| |
Isn't slowing the spread to a rate less than 1
equivalent to stopping the spread? |
|
| |
If there's an animal reservoir that makes a few new
infections every day, but those each infect less than
1 uninfected, then it'll never grow exponentially? |
|
| |
I guess I don't understand what you're proposing
here. "Everyone wears full CBRN forever" is
unworkable, as is "Everyone stays locked down until
an (impossible) vaccine is developed", as is "Destroy
all wild virus including all animal reservoirs", as is
"Accept a 1% death rate" |
|
| |
If each person who now self-quarantines instead wears one of these (and changes the filter properly) I would bet my bottom dollar it would be fully as effective. |
|
| |
// "Accept a 1% death rate" // |
|
| |
Yup. That's it. The 13th C. plague killed 30%+ of the general population. The 17th C. plague killed 20%+. Get a sense of proportion. A VEI8 eruption could easily kill just as many, just as unpredictable and uncontrollable. |
|
| |
If the UK lost 0.1% of its population that would be 67,000.
On 1 July 1916 - in ONE DAY - the UK sustained over 19,000 EXCESS deaths - from a much smaller population.
The 1940-41 "blitz" killed about 41,000 and barely made a dent.
Nations can easily absorb a 1% death rate, particularly when the target cohort is the elderly and those who are already ill in some way. |
|
| |
You have little or no control over your fate. It's mostly random chance. Try to look past the comforting illusions you weave around yourselves. |
|
| |
The answer WAS to "stop the spread outside your borders". With proper, meaningful health checks and quarantine on international travellers, the outbreak would be contained, but that would be socially, commercially and politically unacceptable. The issue was highlighted by the W.H.O. with the advent of mass air travel in the 1960s. |
|
| |
With the incubation period and high infectivity, once it's in there's no stopping it short of the "full CBRN suit" option. Remember, asymptomatic carriers - 50%+ of cases are asympromatic - will diffuse it very efficiently. |
|
| |
By the time you realize there's a problem, it's too late. |
|
| |
To stop it happening again - and it WILL happen again - every international airport needs a "Ellis Island" where incoming passengers are checked and tested and held in semi-isolation for a few days and then checked again. Passengers already grumble about security checks; what government is going to be able to get that sort of border security approved by their populace, particularly when the bills start to arrive. |
|
| |
A 6 night holiday in a sunny resort means a few extra days of isolation at both ends of the trip ? Same for a short business trip ? Huge costs and inconvenience to Joe Public ... sure-fire vote winner ... |
|
| |
The answer is shrug your shoulders, say "Shit happens", and carry on as usual. People will die. Those people will, unfortunately, die anyway . maybe you can delay it a few weeks or months, but they ARE going to die. IT IS NOW MUCH TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING MEANINGFUL. The time to do something càme and went six months ago. |
|
| |
You can try to be prepared for next time, if you can sell it to the electorate. We guess not, because in a year's time, when the numbers are in and it becomes clear what a diabolical cockup governments made, their already zero credibility will go deeply negative. |
|
| |
Individual, personal preparedness is the answer for those who care to buy in to the Survivalist lifestyle. There are probably a few people in the backwoods of Montana and Colorado laughing their heads off at this very moment, and gloating over their huge stocks of canned food and toilet rolls. |
|
| |
Most people don't want to save for their retirement, or pay for their own healthcare. How are you going to persuade them to agree to an expensive and highly inconvenient system where the only evidence of success is negative ? Go on, give it your best shot ... |
|
| |
Or, just wear a P100 mask for most of the trip. If the
choice is between "masks" or "lockdown" most
people would pick "masks". If the choice is between
"masks" and "0.1% chance of lung death" most
people would still pick "masks". |
|
| |
... and gloves. And decontaminate regularly. |
|
| |
But are you sure you didn't make any slips in observing the protocol ? Absolutely sure ? Remember, your life, and that of your loved ones, friends, maybe even your family*, depends on getting it right. |
|
| |
*Observation indicates that "loved ones" and "family" are not necessarily th same group. Indeed, if you have expectations of inheritance from family members, an early demise may be considered providential. |
|
| |
You just have to make sure you're around to claim it. During the 13th C. plague, so many died that infant children - the only survivors - ended up accumulating substantial wealth, through a process best described as "Bubonic Pachinko". |
|
| |
That's why the loved ones have their own masks. |
|
| |
Yes, I am wearing a full face mask with P100 filter
while posting this. No, I am not comfortable wearing
it outside. It wouldn't be polite. |
|
| |
Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you're just a mass of contradictions wrapped in a thin veneer of doubtful intellect ? |
|
| |
// the choice is between "masks" and "0.1% chance of lung death" most people would still pick "masks". // |
|
| |
What if the choice is actually "0.1% chance of lethal pneumonia" or "wear a mask, 0.0999999999% chance of lethal pneumonia" ? |
|
| |
You're pretty much in the same hole either way. Anything less than the full procedure leaves you wide open to an agent like Covid. |
|
| |
Plus there's a 50% chance that you'll never even know you've got it, and the tests become less and less useful as the virus mutates, which it does quickly - so, a false negative, which is extremely dangerous. |
|
| |
Ultimately, what will matter is not the number of deaths related to Covid. What will matter is the EXCESS deaths in the general population for the period under scrutiny, and whether that figure represents a statistically significant deviation from the mean. |
|
| |
20% of the population is significant; 0.1% is not. |
|
| |
<Climbs down off hobby horse> |
|
| |
Indeed, the death rate from other causes has
declined precipitously during this time |
|
| |
It's a golden opportunity for medics to blame their failures on a deus ex machina. It's of no matter now that they screwed up Mr. Koskolovski's oncology treatment plan, or Mrs. Everlie's medication dose, because it was a sunny day and their caddy was waiting at the clubhouse. Just give the relatives a sad, weary smile and say, "I'm so sorry for your loss, Coronavirus you know... " and send in their invoice to the HMO. |
|
| |
"Doctors bury their mistakes" ? A LOT of that going on right now... |
|
| |
The Illusion of Security. Or Hope, Protection, Superiority,
Benefits, whatever. This is pretty much all a government
can offer. |
|
| |
In these years where the populace is expecting more and
more from the government instead of thinking for itself,
it is merely handed something it can deal with. A
placebo. For the government to admit that tens or
hundreds of thousands will die regardless of procedure
would cause widespread panic and rioting, and the
government would lose even more trust. So we have hand
washing, sanitation, seclusion, masks, etc. Procedures
that will both work and fail simultaneously. |
|
| |
Congratulations. You have won today's BorgCo award for Critcal Thinking, and the Thought Police will be around soon to take you away to a Re-Education Camp. |
|
| |
You won't be lonely; there are quite a few other halfbakers there already. |
|
| |
// lose even more trust // |
|
| |
This is, however, a very good thing. Only by eliminating trust and belief from society can the evil be purged. Once those are lost - and they are disappearing at an ever greater rate - the existing systems will cease to function completely, rather than just limping along as they are now. Corrosive cynicism should be promoted. Noting should be taken "on trust". Implied credibility should be reserved only for those situations where there is an established track record of success and reliability. |
|
| |
For example, when ATC advises, "Change course to two three zero and climb to three thousand to avoid conflicting traffic", the implied credibility is justified. Air traffic controllers have a generally good record of stopping aircraft banging into one another, and further the assertion can be verified. |
|
| |
"Approach, please identify conflicting traffic, Golf Sierra Yankee*."
"Traffic is Golf Bravo Echo Tango Tango, inbound Alpha Tango Romeo seven two on long finals for Romeo one five"
"Golf Tango Tango, please advise your course and height, Golf Sierra Yankee"
"Golf Sierra Yankee, height two five zero zero course one six zero, five miles short of the outer marker, Golf Tango Tango".
"Golf Tango Tango, all received, thankyou sir, Golf Sierra Yankee".
|
|
| |
But most pilots trust ATC most of the time, the point being that they don't have to and if you decide to verify for yourself you're seen as a good, cautious and professional flyer. |
|
| |
Ask politicians to do anything similar and they dissemble, obfuscate, or mostly just lie outright. |
|
| |
*Callsigns and aircraft types have been changed to protect the inept and incompetent. |
|
| |
Nevertheless, a fancy mask would look cool regardless of
cost. |
|
| |
Come October, Trick-or-Treating may be a bit... different.... |
|
| |
If you've ever worn a full P100 mask and NBC gear, (I have,
just yesterday, in fact), you'll realize that you quickly
become very hot and icky in them and you as well as the
rest of the population will risk taking them off at the
earliest opportunity. |
|
| |
This idea is not a coverall. This idea is just a mask. |
|
| |
Goal is to reduce the r0 from ~5 to ~0.5. |
|
| |
In The Good Old Days, surgeons operated in their street clothes. |
|
| |
Then, along with masks, came special sterile garments.... |
|
| |
Why is that ? Could it possibly be that a mask on its own is ineffective at containing biocontaminants? |
|
| |
Suit up, or don't bother. And [Ray] is quite right, full NBC gear is very uncomfortable to wear. Only stark fear of death* will motivate disciplined use. |
|
| |
*Or a serious chewing-out by an NCO; death is in fact often the preferable option. |
|
| |
So nobody should wear masks during flu season?
Masks don't work? |
|
| |
I don't understand what I need to say differently to
communicate that this idea is to reduce, not
eliminate, the spread of the disease. |
|
| |
I don't see how a disease with r=~5 when most
people are oblivious and not wearing masks, could
definitely have r>1 when everyone wears a N100
mask and face shield, and hand washes and wipes
down surfaces often. |
|
| |
Are you saying that most spread of the virus is not
due to coughing/exhalation? How else could the
virus spread, if people 1. Wear masks so virus is not
exhaled and 2. Wear masks so virus is not inhaled,
and 3. Wear face shields so virus is not transferred
by face touching and 4. wash/wipe to regularly
decontaminate masks and face shields? |
|
| |
Or are you saying that anything short of a full NBC
decontamination (full body suit, hose down with
solvent, HEPA filtered gowning area, etc. etc.) will
have zero effect on the rate of spread of the virus? |
|
| |
Either you do the full deal, or don't bother. |
|
| |
Healthcare professionals and the military follow rigid protocols. Untrained Joe Public won't do a good enough job, even provided with all the kit, to make a difference. |
|
| |
You don't *just* put a mask on; it has to be adjusted, properly, to be any good. Every time. Every, single time, without fail. You need sanitizers, and disposable/cleanable garments. That's hugely expensive, and difficult to organize unless it's done well in advance. You need depots full of kit. You HAVE to stick rigidly to the procedures. You need people to work with you, to decontaminate you. Those people have to be totally on-script, too. EVERY time. |
|
| |
Can you get your kids to do that ? Are you sure that everyone else around you is doing that ? |
|
| |
Without 100% compliance, you will only slow the spread very slightly. |
|
| |
1. Everyone (unless you live in an off-grid cabin in Alaska) will eventually be exposed. Biological reservoirs will see to that.
2. There will never be a broad-spectrum vaccine. The nature of the RNA virus determines that.
3. The majority of those who become exposed will contract the virus, and will be asymptomatic for up to 14 days. 50% will never show symptoms.
5. Serological tests become "aged" and invalid after 28 days resulting in false negatives due to the mutation rate.
6. For the same reason, susceptible individuals can be "re-infected" by a slightly mutated strain of the virus, resulting in a "double whammy".
7. Some of those who contract the virus will become seriously ill.
8. A small proportion of those who contact the virus - 99% of whom will have underlying conditions - will die.
|
|
| |
At the time of writing, the UK Covid-RELATED mortality is about 16K, or 0.024%. |
|
| |
Deaths SOLELY due to the virus are about 60, or 1 in 8.9 E -7 |
|
| |
The one-year survival for the target cohort (Over 65, high-risk conditions) is 12%. Nine out of ten of these people will be dead this time next year, from something or other. |
|
| |
<link> to a reasonably accurate and accessible description of just what's involved in trying to contain a really dangerous virus (Ebola zaire, a Restonvirus, quite similar to Coronavirus in some ways). |
|
| |
If I understand [8th's] message, the virus is harmless
enough that the proper course of action is to do
nothing and let everyone get infected, as this is what
will inevitably happen anyway. |
|
| |
... which doesn't address the fact that it's still a problem if all
those scheduled to die anyway in the next twelve months hit
the hospital *this* month, taking with them (through
overwork) a number of doctors and nurses who would
otherwise not have died for many years. CNN reports 40-odd
working doctors dying in Lombardy since the crisis started,
and I doubt that's the same as the background death-rate of
non-retired medical professionals in that region. |
|
| |
What's the excess mortality, though ? |
|
| |
Averaged over a year, is it statistically significant ? |
|
| |
It's a fluctuation. The problem is not the fluctuation, but that the sudden uptick conflicts with the human illusion of control. In reality, humans are blown hither and thither by the random winds of fate. This is just nature doing what nature does now and again. |
|
| |
Because there can be a degree of influence over some infections (smallpox, measles, polio etc.) then the assumption becomes that there can be control over all infections. This is entirely wrong. Nobody has bothered to tell nature, or get a sign-off, so nature is just carrying on regardless. |
|
| |
You might as well try debating with a thunderstorm, for all the good it will do. |
|
| |
If those 40 medics had died in a coach crash, there would have been a search for someone or something to blame. That won't bring the 40 dead people back, but it satisfies a psychological need. With Covid, there is no-one to blame and humans are effectively powerless. Unsurprisingly, that's very frightening. But the numbers are relatively small, and have no significant impact on society as a whole. They will be replaced. |
|
| |
That's not an argument for non-intervention in the pandemic,
it's an argument for checking out entirely, and going off in
search of a heroin overdose. You can do that if you like, as
an existential choice. Most people choose otherwise. |
|
| |
Apparently Italy has ~40,000 doctors near
retirement age, suggesting a doctor death rate of
~0.2%. However this includes doctors who would
have died anyway. The true death rate due entirely to
the virus seems to be ~0.05% or so (counting
asymptomatic infections and not counting sick
people who would have died anyway). Thus, I would
agree with [8th] that masks are not required based
on results so far, unless there's something we don't
know. |
|
| |
There are many people who are old, paranoid, sick,
or all of the above, and for them masks are a good
idea, to protect themselves. Also there are rumors
that reinfection or latent infection might be worse
than the initial infection so masks seem prudent
until this higher level of risk is ruled out. |
|
| |
CNN can be relied upon to give true statements with
frantic and questionable context. I prefer to get my
news closer to the source (e.g. social media,
independent blogs) since I find these to be faster,
more useful,
and more pleasant to listen to (i.e. not "newscaster
voice" shouting at me). |
|
| |
[Pertinax]'s suggestion reminds me of my
"Immortality Tax" idea...and until people everywhere
accept a ~40% additional tax for medical research
to reverse aging, people are going to continue to die
en masse for (in principle) preventable reasons. A
prolonged, mandatory quarantine (or worse, a
mandatory biannual vaccine series + mandatory
electronic
tracking
id with movement restrictions + digital global
currency) is unacceptable from a
civil liberties standpoint. Quarantine should be as
directed by whoever pays for one's doctor bills, i.e.
as needed for health insurance to pay out without
needing to increase the risk premium too much.
Again, the current response seems reasonable if
we don't understand the virus. |
|
| |
Labouring the point, the protection offered by masks in the absence of all the other equipment and procedures is minimal; so minimal as to be pointless. The mathematics of probable medic deaths are unarguable. |
|
| |
// That's not an argument for non-intervention in the pandemic, // |
|
| |
It is. If the infective agent were different, and there was a meaningful intervention, then that intervention should be made. Immunization campaigns against influenza are simple, of moderate cost, and show good effectveness. But in this case there is no useful intervention. |
|
| |
After exiting a ditched aircraft, it is logical to inflate your lifejacket. If the aircraft disintegrates at altitude over water, by all means inflate your lifejacket; it will slow your descent very slightly, and help searchers find your body. But it will not help, because what you need is a parachute, a more complex device that requires training to use, then subsequently the lifejacket once you're in the water. |
|
| |
There are infections for whch vaccination or prophylaxis are effective. This isn't one of them, and the excess deaths in the general population don't justify the panic. The response has been muddled and ineffective; it's ineffective because there is nothing effective that could have been done. |
|
| |
Public health measures work very well for many diseases. But not this one. |
|
| |
Here's a test anyone can do. Count up how many people in your address book - be it digital, paper, or in [xen]'s case marked on dried leaves* with a burnt stick. |
|
| |
Mark all the individuals who are "high risk" - over 65, or with serious pre-existing conditions. |
|
| |
Then, excluding those, count all the ones you personally know who have been seriously ill, or died, in the last three months, from a Covid-19 related condition. Not celebrities, or friends of friends - individuals who your personally know. |
|
| |
*Well, one leaf. One of the two contacts listed is imaginary. |
|
| |
Note Corona and ghoulish hat pics, in a Private Eye (the magazine) stylee. Links etc |
|
| |
We are delighted to report that wearing a full-face respirator that has been "mirror-glazed" by the careful application of "solar control film" on the inside of the transparent portion totally freaks people out, even those to whom the wearer is well known, and is even more effective in shops; small children cry or run away, even adults look startled and anxious. |
|
| |
But no-one objects. It is, after all, a "compliant face-covering" ... |
|
| |
Well, yes ... how did you know ? |
|
| |
It's an interesting change in social perceptions. |
|
| |
Previously, many establishments, particularly those involved with cash handling, like banks and liquor stores, had prominent signs exhorting patrons to "REMOVE MOTORCYCLE HELMETS BEFORE ENTERING". |
|
| |
But now, the vast majority of the population are wearing a mask that covers at least the lower portion of their face; and covering the entire face is seen as a little extreme, but not excessive. Full-face (non-sealing, non filtering) shields are commonplace. |
|
| |
It will be very interesting to see what happens once sanity returns. Mask-wearing will almost certainly remain as a socially acceptable behaviour, non-wearers simply assuming that the wearer is in a "high risk" group and fearful of infection. In the past, it was usually only recent transplant recipients or the otherwise immune-compromised who wore masks. |
|
| |
The vendors of facial recognition software must be getting a little nervous ... |
|
| |
//Mask-wearing will almost certainly remain as a socially acceptable behaviour// |
|
| |
That alone might justify all the beervirus deaths. Anonymity will help encourage less fearful debate, which will let us argue more honestly. Like the internet but in person. |
|
| |
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. -- Oscar Wilde |
|
| |
Guy Fawkes masks all round, then ... |
|
| |