Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No, Just No…New Rules of Social Distancing on Reopening
Per the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday:
As states across the country reopen and several report fresh outbreaks of the [Wuhan] coronavirus, many people are unsure how to navigate this confusing time. We asked experts about resuming a near-normal life while minimizing the risk of getting the virus that causes Covid-19.
Here is what some of those so-called experts said.
About how the virus is spread:
Health agencies like the CDC and WHO have long focused on preventing transmission of the virus through droplets, largely through coughing and sneezing. Now, many experts say, there is increasing evidence that it can be spread through smaller droplets, called aerosols, which are released and inhaled through breathing, talking, singing, and other activities. …aerosols can linger in the air for hours. Preventing transmission through these invisible particles is trickier and underscores the importance of face coverings and distance, air filtration and proper ventilation.
About optimal social distance:
Six feet is good, but 10 feet is better, says Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings program at the Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health, who has warned about airborne transmission of the new coronavirus for months. …More space around people is always better.
About expanding our social circles:
Yes [expand social circles], particularly if you are gathering outside and taking the proper precautions in terms of distance and masks. …”The fewer contacts we have, the better“, Dr. Allen says….”I think you can start to expand your circle but it depends on how serious the other family is taking their precautions and if they have quarantined and locked down.”
About elevators:
If you can, take the stairs. If you can’t, don’t board a crowded elevator–unless the lobby is more crowded. Don’t touch buttons if possible, though it is fine to use your elbow or even fingers as long as you avoid touching your face before cleaning your hands.
About that summer vacation:
Yes! “We need to get out and about in the world for our mental health,” Dr. Allen says. “We should take advantage of the summer when we can be outdoors because we don’t know what the winter is going to bring.”
Choose destinations where it is easy to practice social distancing…can include national parks and beaches if not crowded. …places where you can bring your own food and supplies, or where there are options that make it easy to avoid crowded restaurants or grocery stores.
About camping:
If camping with people outside your immediate family, maintain the 6-feet distance even when outside, don’t share food and drinks, and try not to touch each other’s supplies (or wash and sanitize your hands before and after if you do).
If people actually try to observe all these rules, what families or friends would even want to get together at all? Yes, let’s all go outside, in our masks, maintaining a 6-10 foot distance from our friends (good luck talking with them, behind a mask from six feet away). No talking, singing, or breathing, for fear of spreading the virus. Who is going to sing from behind a mask? Who even believes anything out of the CDC/Deep State or (China-aligned) WHO these days? Going to that restaurant? How are you supposed to communicate your order to the server if you are both wearing masks and 6 feet apart? Outdoors is noisier than indoors, making communication even more difficult.
It seems to me that all these rules for avoiding contagion take most, if not all, of the fun out of life. Going outdoors would seem like an ordeal, not an excursion.
How will we be able to have a Ricochet meetup in the future? What will the Black Hills meetup look like in September, if everyone is masked and six feet apart? Will the group be able to go out anywhere to eat or drink, or be confined to the vacation house that Randy has already rented?
The rules for reopening are depressing, and enough to make me wonder if there will ever be a return to normal (what was normal in December 2019). Are people doomed to never getting close to their friends again? Is this what the so-called experts really want society to look like? I sure hope not.
Published in Healthcare
As I said: lies upon lies:
“
The Washington State Department of Health is altering the way it reports COVID-19 deaths to better identify if COVID-19 caused or contributed to a particular death.
“The changes we’re making to reporting will remove non-COVID-19 deaths from the statewide total, and break down the overall data to include more specific categories.”
Previously, when a death was reported as a COVID-19 death, the person who passed away had also tested positive for COVID-19. This method, DOH says, doesn’t just reflect the deaths of people whose deaths were caused by COVID-19 since it could also include someone who died of other causes.
The change in reporting will take place in two phases — Phase 1 on June 17, Phase 2 in the coming weeks. Phase 1 includes removing deaths where COVID-19 did not contribute to death, and it removed seven from the current count, including two suicides, three homicides, and two overdose deaths. Phase 2 will include an expansion of how the DOH reports deaths to identify if COVID-19 can be confirmed or ruled out as a cause of death.”
Someone explain to me why honesty has to come in “phases.” This whole thing is scandalous. In short: “we’ve been lying to you. But we’re still going to use those lies to justify our continued draconian measures.”
While I’ve thought Inslee was right on at the beginning of the virus thing as all the governors have had a hard time grappling with public safety and economics, I chose to cut him some slack until fairly recently. But– the occupation and destruction of property by riotous gangs that has taken place in Seattle with no significant response from the governor to restore law and order, leaves me cold to the point that I sincerely hope he is not reelected. Both you and I will use the ballot box to show our displeasure, and I don’t believe you honestly want him to die because of his political ineptitude.
Perhaps you have been out of med school too long-try reading some of the relevant literature-it isn’t even close- the weight of the evidence is that masks decrease transmission of respiratory viruses. Perhaps you don’t remember the jokes either, such as:
Q: how do you hide money from a surgeon?
A: put it in a book!
Worst insult-you have the mind of a surgeon and the hands of an internist!
[TIC-sort of inside baseball type jokes-every field has them. Mechanical engineers make fun of civil engineers etc]
The distance cutoff is somewhat arbitrary-more distance is of course safer-but you have to choose something somewhat reasonable. The drop in transmission is rapid after 1-2 feet and the gain in safety drops quickly after 3-6 feet. Some of the impetus for 6 feet is coughing, voice projection etc which increases droplet propagation. Masks are probably additive-if not even better. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2020/06/13/face-masks-may-be-the-key-determinant-of-the-covid-19-curve-study-suggests/amp/)
It isn’t just political ineptitude. He is ignoring a literal insurrection in Seattle and targeting my county, and me personally, with extreme measures that should not be tolerated. I would tar and feather him if we still did that sort of thing.
Literally every “study” I’ve seen about the efficacy of masks has been as theoretical as these insane projection models. Junk science. They work for bacteria. This has been known for a long time, and it is now that Fauci, et. al. are lying to us for political reasons.
Not so-just a few cases-2 Infected hair dressers cut the hair of 140 consecutive clients while masks were used and NO ONE got infected. Additionally, reviews of similar outbreaks (SARS) where masks were used show that people who wore masks were much less likely to get infected.
Add this to the list of evidence to the multiple prior citations I have posted on Ricochet-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200612172200.htm
another juicy tidbit-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2020/06/13/face-masks-may-be-the-key-determinant-of-the-covid-19-curve-study-suggests/amp/
That’s the junk science I’m referring to.
But even if these magic masks did work, there’s still a problem. How long do you wear them? They don’t kill the virus. If they work, they only work while you do it. Be honest about what you’re suggesting. Everyone wears a mask, forever. Sorry, but I’d rather take my chances with the virus. If you don’t like it, don a hazmat suit for all I care. You’ll be safe for the whole rest of your miserable life.
I figure the cloth ones work like a snowfence. Yes, they let some through. Highly recommended.
It’s not junk science because you refuse to consider it- you ignore whatever does not conform to your preexisting concepts. That is not a scientific mindset. Before looking at some of the data, I thought masks were a waste of time-but lo and behold when I actually considered the data I found there is evidence they work. Prior to this year everytime I saw someone in public wearing a mask I believed they must have a germ phobia. Now the evidence is not ironclad-but almost nothing we do in medicine has excellent data backing it. It is difficult to have definitive proof in medicine b/c 1)humans are complex- hard to model or control 2)they do not like being treated like lab rats 3)using rigorous control groups is possibly unethical in many cases. There are major medical studies that have greatly influenced therapy that are pure garbage (2 quick examples- the famous study on therapy for Kawasaki’s disease is almost certainly bunk & the study that set the drug therapy for out of hospital arrests is worthless- altho both are “standards“- for more fun about problems with current science read: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress).
but if you look objectively at the data on masks one can conclude that the evidence supports their effectiveness & as a medical professional one should advise their use until either better quality evidence contradicts it or we develop better methods to combat the virus.
In other words, masks forever.
I gave up using a blow dryer and just finger comb my hair. Works for guys if you’ve had a good haircut within the past month.
Which was worse, the terror from the anticipation of being possibly waterboarded (face covered with towel while at hair washing station and hearing the water running) or the actual waterboarding (assumes some experience with the real thing)?
Yes, and also in a blue state where most people reliably vote Democrat. What does that say they think about their voters?
I was thinking of something more benign, like maybe a few million voters throw a yellow flag on him. Maybe a penalty kick. Drat. I’m thinking soccer analogies, that socialist sport. I need to be thinking squash. I’ve been too long without my squash. Do I have a video review?
I couldn’t help myself and liked this comment.
Ah. Science!
The interview is here.
The big “study” everyone is pointing to for the effectiveness of masks also comes from the lancet, and has already been highly criticized as junk science.
You still have no understanding. The only thing that beats a virus is a vaccine (non-existent) or some form of herd immunity. Not 80%, but more like 5-15. Even if masks did work, healthy people should not be wearing them. All that would do is insure that the virus remains with us for as long as possible.
Just because something “works” for one purpose doesn’t mean that it is what we should be doing. It is a perfect example of short-sighted thinking and failure to consider tradeoffs. This sort of thinking has come to define both government action and the mob mentality, and it is extremely destructive.
Except how do you identify ”healthy” people ahead of time when ~30% of those infected are asymptomatic/presymptomatic? Also note that many experts believe that the coronavirus is mostly spread before people become symptomatic- sort of nullifies claims that healthy people shouldn’t wear masks. I am not at all short sighted- most here who oppose masks are being very short sighted- believe me if you don’t like masks you will hate the other alternatives ( short of the often touted “herd immunity”- which may not exist-see the recent data on antibody levels post infection- & would mean many more deaths). If we do not use masks and we try to combat the virus that means we would have to adopt an aggressive testing & contact tracing regime which would be MORE problematic than mask wearing for most people. The feds would have to hire a large workforce to do the tracing work- and you can be sure they will be expensive as well as Democrat donating public sector union employees with fat pensions. Do you want tens of thousands of government KAREN’s keeping track of your movements? Heck, the left will block serious attempts at contacting tracing if it involves protests (see NYC)- but they will be glad to track your attendance at church or Trump rallies. In fact, in some states they already require churches to keep names & phone numbers of those who attend church. I have read epidemiologists who claim that the number of tests required to rely on testing/tracing is, in fact, not achievable. Trying the “herd immunity” approach means a likely 2nd wave & Joe Biden presidency. So choose your poison- a) wear a mask & work for vaccine or b) no masks & you help Biden’s election and get a nice 1st iteration of government surveillance programs to trace the virus- oh and by the way track you as well.
Nobody seems to remember the initial reluctance of recommending people wear masks and face coverings in public was based on not wanting to spread fear. This was before supplies became a concern.
My beef with the way the public health experts managed the message is that from the beginning, they treated the management of this respiratory epidemic as an either-or choice with regards to herd immunity or curve flattening. There is no exit without herd immunity. With respiratory illnesses, they have to go through the young population so that population could develop herd immunity that would cause the virus to die and protect older people from being exposed. The approach we have used guarantees that the virus will still be with us being passed around when older Americans come out from lockdown. Herd immunity can be inhibited by closing the schools too soon, which is what we did. Out of fears to protect older Americans, we discredited the time proven method allowing the illness to pass through a younger more resilient part of the population, preventing that population from developing the immunity that would protect older Americans.
And my other beef is with how many of our experts seem to act like this was their first rodeo with respiratory viruses. How can there be so many experts doing little more than follow-the-leader on this without resort to lessons learned from past respiratory epidemics?
NO- it has been criticized b/c it is a REVIEW of 172 observational studies rather than a randomized controlled study- which is practically impossible as well as probably unethical to do. A more recent study supporting mask use has been criticized for its methods (see today’s NYT)-BUT the critics claim they believe that mask use IS effective- but they don’t think the current study ADDS to the data ( a report of the study is here-https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/to-wear-a-mask-or-not-is-not-the-question-research-indicates-its-the-answer). Another recent study just reported also backs masks-https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794
again it is observational – but that is to be expected you will have a hard time with your institution’s IRB (the group that monitors the ethics of studies) if you expose people to the virus to see what happens (ie make a control group). That is not a small point- a few years ago Johns Hopkins got in trouble during an asthma study because a person died after they induced an asthma attack in a study of asthma treatment. Novel infections make it impossible to have randomized, controlled studies already concluded to guide our efforts-so we rely on similar situations (SARS) or observational studies.
You posted a link to this PNAS one yesterday. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a study. It’s a kindergartenish attempt at one, mixed with some political advocacy. But the choice is not between this junk and a randomized controlled study, which as you point out couldn’t really be done for ethical reasons if no other. Instead, the people who did this miserable excuse of a paper which would never have passed a real peer review, could have taken its one observation and compared it with other cities and localities. I.e. instead of n=1 it could have been based on n=30 or n=50, using data that were just as available as the New York City data, and could have made a real study out of it. It wouldn’t have been expensive to do that. I’ll bet the grant money they got for this “study” could just as easily have paid for doing it right.
My wife and I did go to church today, and we wore our masks. We happened to hear some really wacko reasons people gave for not wearing masks. This paper is in the same wacko category, but on the other side.
Now I’ll take a look at the other link you posted. It almost has to be better.
I should add that this not so much a study of face mask use, but of government directives mandating face mask use. Except I shouldn’t use the plural, as the interesting part was just a study of one government directive mandating face mask use. (A couple of others were also referred to in the paper.)
(I’ve started to read the other paper you cited, and so far it sounds more promising. It helps that it is coherent.)
The idea isn’t to beat the virus, but to stay well. A mask can increase my odds, and increase the odds of those around me.
Or until we determine that it’s not worth the effort, the dehumanizing, or the walking around sweating in your own breath just so you don’t transmit a disease that you don’t have.
A SCUBA tank would do even better.
But it would be much more troublesome. The cost-benefit ratio wouldn’t be good.
How do you know you don’t have it? That is the problem- it is unlikely we can test enough to be sure we contain it-since at least 30% of infected people do not know they are infected & spreading seems to occur mostly when asymptomatic.
? Citation?