> test for the virus in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, with about 200 million people.
> its saliva and finger-prick kit could be ready for sale by June for less than $1 apiece
> Mologic and the Institut Pasteur have joint capacity to produce 8 million tests a year
every little helps, and a low-cost test would obviously be a game-changer. but let's keep things in perspective and be realistic. it sounds quite hypothetical right now. there's no indication it works reliably yet.
That does not line up with any data collected before.
Not only that, demographically the hardest hit population (80+) are not in the time of their lives where they spend the bulk of their money nor are they in the most productive time of their lives.
Depends how much we're able to slow it down. For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. It is still exponential but much slower. Hopefully the new measures put in the past week will slow it even more.
At which point, once we have fast and reliable testing, we can actually start having people go out more and reduce the isolation, since we can count on better testing to stop the spread.
In Canada, growth was slower for a while, but the number of (detected) cases has doubled twice in the past 5 days, which just about matches what we saw in Italy and the US once they hit 100 cases.
Absolutely. Canada still only tests people with symptoms AND (have traveled recently OR have been in contact with a confirmed positive case).
Yet the messaging until recently was "no evidence of community spread, risk remains low" with very lukewarm response. Of course there is no evidence if you don't look for it.
I understand they don't want to incite panic but anyone who's been paying attention to other countries can see that community spread is inevitable unless you have strict measures and robust testing, very early on. I'm pissed our politicians have ignored lessons from other countries.
Exactly. Starting from the first case is not useful. Starting from a baseline of 100 offers a more consistent comparison. And for that, almost all countries are following the same path.
I think this site may be paywalled unfortunately (but there is just a $1 for the first month charge):
I really don't see how anyone expects this to be over by June.
Exponential growth at the current rate would have it burning through the global population by the end of June, but since exponential growth becomes logistic growth after an appreciable fraction of the population is infected, June is probably closer to the halfway point than the end date.
And that's assuming zero curve flattening. The entire point of flattening the curve is to draw it out so that hospitals continue to function for longer. But this also makes the pandemic last longer.
A vaccine isn't expected for over a year, and even then, I'd expect at least a few months of logistical difficulties getting enough manufactured, distributed, and administered, especially given the state that hospitals will likely be in.
Yes, this was what I had in mind when I made this comment.
We would be screwed, IMHO, based on the current mitigation strategies around curve flattening that are not being communicated realistically to the public. The crop of shutdowns over the weekend were billed as 2-3 weeks.. Err, what? How are we even going to know what effect that's having without massive blanket testing? Then, nobody seems to believe anything less than 8 weeks is enough; and that's full-blown lock-down not fractions of half measures.
But as you say, the just spreads it out. So what happens in 8 weeks when we still can't let up the restrictions because if we did that the number of cases would just explode again among the uninfected population? If we aren't turning the corner by June and getting the 40% of adults who can't afford $400 in an emergency back to work..
I'm sympathetic to the UKs strategy and hope the best for them.
> The crop of shutdowns over the weekend were billed as 2-3 weeks.. Err, what?
Exactly. People seem to be mistaking the incubation period (~two weeks) for the length of time the pandemic will last (months at minimum).
It's impossible to have a perfect quarantine, so if we were to all go back to normal after a month, the pandemic growth curve will pick up where it left off. Exiting the lockdown will need to be done super carefully to avoid this outcome.
As far as I can tell, this is probably going to be the new normal until we have a vaccine.
The 40%/$400 item comes from a fed survey about liquidity. It includes 17% of households with $100,000 in income. It is an outlier, other surveys put it the percentage at 20%.
The flattening strategies are like holding your breath, you can't do it forever. But vaccines are not the only way in which we get better at dealing with the virus. Long before we get a vaccine we will get better not only at treating Covid-19 (which will increase the effective medical capacity) but also at keeping the gears turning without too much viral spread. With a bit of luck and a few logistical winning moves we might be able to let this play out safely not that much later than current unrealistic expectations.
Not sure why your score is so slow, you're spot-on. This is literally the global pandemic we've been scared of. It just came out of China instead of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
You realise this isn't going to play out by June, right?
Do the math on those "flatten the curve" graphs and work out the X-axis given the projected infection rates (20%-60% of population), hospitalisation rate (15%-30%), days in hospital required (6-9) and the number of beds available.
This ends with a vaccine or a mutation that gives (partial?) immunity and a lower death rate.
"masks and test kits". Epidemiologists say masks are practically useless against virus. The one that is effective with special training is useless without.
Western countries need to spend more energy on mask productions.
I heard the mask production automation lines cost $50K to $100 in China and TW. Now the price for machines and production materials are 5-10 times the normal.
But once setup, 95% - 99% of the process is automated. There are zero pollution and it is neither labor nor capital intensive. Do need the logistic and abilities to source some raw materials. If setup, the next few months would be like printing $$$$.
TW can make 10 millions masks per day now.
China has production line making 110 millions mask per day.
They were able mobilized the industries like war time - TW actually send enlist Army personnels to the factory to help out.
In general the switch to just-in-time for everything was a fair-weather decision. You goose can your margins when things are great, too bad about your supply chain when things are less than great.
This is probably OK for ice cream and computer hardware. Less so for medical supplies.
Right. And everyone understands this when it's the military: If you can't make more missiles at home, then you are a pawn of whoever you buy them from. We ought to have taken a similar line on a lot of medical supplies, especially those likely to be useful at whole-population scale.
Yup. In mainland China they repurposed car assembly lines to mask production (there's not much car selling anyway). Western countries need to copy at least some of those measures.
Some Chinese manufacturing (or maybe a lot, I don't know) is still based on low wage advantages. Those factories are much easier to repurpose than factories in high wage countries that are optimized like race cars to maximize worker productivity. I wouldn't be surprised if a European car manufacturer would find it challenging to switch an engine factory from diesel to petrol with less than a year run up time.
Would it be a bad idea for the government to have a reserve for healthcare workers for the next time this happens? To slowly sell off what is there, and to restock to create a buffer. And in a time of crisis, have a large amount that can only be bought by healthcare workers.
It's complicated. It doesn't stop you from getting the virus if you get droplets on your hands and rub your eyes / nose / mouth, which is one of the more common vectors. So I buy that there's no evidence it stops you from getting the disease. But it does limit the droplets you spray out as you're speaking / coughing, etc. So IMO it would be part of a general solution to limit how much you spread the disease. But self-quarantine is easier to be sure you're doing it right. Wearing N-95 masks effectively is harder than just strapping it on, and the untrained are likely to touch their faces more while they're doing so anyway. I'd be surprised if everyone wearing a fresh mask properly and washing their hands properly before touching the mask or face didn't put a major dent in the pandemic. But that's just not going to happen anyway so we can't tell.
I think the big issue is supply for medical staff. There's a limited supply of legit masks. Medical staff need masks more. We need medical staff more. And the masks are more effective with training / other procedures in place. Other than that - if the masks didn't help you, medical staff wouldn't wear them.
This is the right answer. As someone who has the virus, it absolutely helps you not spread it. As someone who doesn't, it may stop a few droplets from getting into your system right at that moment, but said droplets can still get on your hands, and 30m later when you scratch your nose, you'll still get infected.
So yes, with supply being low, it's far more useful for infected people to not spread said droplets.
The masks serve as a reminder to not scratch your nose, since it is covered. Glasses or sunglasses help for your eyes.
Over here, supply doesn't seem to be low. Lots of smoke recently meant lots of masks in the supply chain. I'm surprised I see so few worn in the shops though, especially since I spent a lot of time in Asia where masks were common during flu season.
Exactly: put quite simply the best mitigation measure is a mask, since it prevents most of the virus from getting into the air--the virus's primary medium of transmission.
Even simpler--don't wear a mask for yourself, but for others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/ “Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission.”
I hate to sound anti-science, but with something "spread by droplets" from coughs and sneezes and spit, where we should avoid touching our faces, it sure as hell sounds like even the most basic mask could be hugely helpful.
They're trying to conserve masks for health care professionals, and DEFINITELY don't want people using "I'm wearing a mask" as an excuse to go out when they should just stay home, but I can't imagine they don't help a lot.
It is the black and white thinking. The mask is either useless or perfect. The case where it would lower probability is considered "useless" cause it is not "perfect".
Imo, this all or nothing thinking is contemporary issue that plays out in many contexts and we collectivelly really should get out of it.
For most people, regular hand washing and not touching your face is orders of magnitude more effective than wearing a mask. But as a society we've become addicted to off-the-shelf solutions rather than boring good habits.
Basic masks can be beneficial for a short time. They need to be replaced at least every hour in order for the benefit to persist. This is routine in a hospital, but is simply impractical for most normal people.
(If a mask stops a droplet containing virus, the virus doesn't disappear. Your own breath and fine droplets keeps the mask material warm and humid—making the mask material great environment for the virus to hang out and spread through the fabric until it can be breathed directly into your lung where it can do the most damage.)
With a disease that spreads while asymptomatic, the droplets we really need to stop are the outgoing ones. A high level of even improper or suboptimal mask usage in the general not-yet-diagnosed population would be very helpful, because it would cut the six-foot proximity hazard zone down to inches.
There is evidence look at Asia. Everyone is wearing a mask and they control the virus. If you want to search for research based evidence there are plenty but focus on the research pre coronavirus - right now there is too much noise. One research suggested that with good handwashing masks reduce the infection rate by 75%.
N95 respirators have a pore size on the order of 100-300 nm. Viral particles can be a lot smaller than that (5-10nm), but this coronavirus seems to have a 80-90nm diameter. That means a respirator might be able to stop the particles IF worn perfectly (if you have stubble or a beard, you're already screwed). They will however stop droplets from someone sneezing or coughing, again IF worn properly. Medical professionals get fitted regularly to ensure proper fit.
Masks are only effective in a fairly immediate radius: someone coughs, that droplet goes a little ways then falls on a surface. Medical professionals are in that immediate radius all the time, that's why they need the masks. People are usually not sneezing directly on each other, so that's less of an issue. What IS an issue is the viral particle that is now on a surface. You touch that, move your hand to your face (perhaps to adjust your mask) and bingo you're infected. Washing your hands obsessively is WAY more useful than any mask.
Most of the time in medicine masks are used to stop the medical professional from contaminating the patient, not the other way around (that's what you see in surgery). If you're with someone sick, it would be good to give them a mask, they'll spread fewer particles that way.
TLDR: Masks are minimally useful for the broader public, very useful for those directly in harm's way. Don't buy masks unless you're sick, or someone close to you is sick. Let the supply chain work for medical professionals who actually need them.
Mask shortage is a red herring. I can tie a bandana or a scarf around my mouth. If it reduces my chances of breathing in a cough droplet by even 5%, that’s great. Why not?
Go for it! Just keep in mind that the benefit there is pretty minimal. Probably not quite zero, but we're talking way less than hand washing. And if you touch your face more as a result of wearing the mask...
That's not to say do or don't do it, just be careful. Handwashing and not touching your face are the single most important things to do.
But they do also say that masks are difficult for people to use correctly, and if you're not using it correctly it'll increase your risk.
slowhand09 has been unfairly downvoted, because they are factually correct. Epidemiologists are telling the public not to use masks because PPE needs training.
They say that so we, the dumb animals, don't stockpile them like we do with toilet paper (can't find any for 2 weeks straight in my area of Berlin for example).
Of course masks are useful, but they're more useful in hospitals / on health care workers' face, than on the average citizen which won't be in contact with the virus that much now that most of the world is starting to get locked down anyway
> Epidemiologists say masks are practically useless against virus. //
Have you seen any of them cite a research paper showing that? I haven't, I'm open to suggestions if anyone has one.
Same thing with the "keeping schools open won't spread the virus" thing in the UK; lots of establishment scientists saying "trust us" but a dearth of papers detailing how the established beliefs are wrong that schools are prime transmission vectors for ARI (and closing them has helped to hinder influenza trasmissions in the past).
Not being snarky; if you've got backing for "masks don't hinder viral spread" then lets see it.
In general, masks are something that the sick person wears to prevent germ spread. Same idea as why surgeons wear them in the operating theater.
The only kind of mask that's going to filter particulate matter out of the air (i.e., be effective against the virus for someone who is not infected) is something that has an airtight seal.
Yes, so you agree, masks hinder transmission by, in your understanding as presented, decreasing the ability of sick people to infect healthy people. That is, masks reduce transmission.
Surgical high-proof mask doctors and nurses use are pretty good against viruses, combined with googles of course.
For normal person? They are mostly useless. Only for people, who are already sick, to stop them from spreading virus further. Wearing mask by healthy person doesn't make sense, because there is not much to stop viruses with coming in contact with your eyes. You are always a scratch away from bringing those viruses into your body, negating any benefit from mask. And most of mask, you can buy currently are not dense enough to capture viruses.
OP is correct, unless you are sick or medical worker, you don't need mask. Don't buy them, hospitals need them much more than you.
I believe this is primarily a narrative that was invented to prevent a temporary shortage of masks for health care workers. This may be a noble cause, but it's still a lie. Surgical masks reduce the probability of infecting others if you have it (maybe without knowing), and correctly used N95 masks drastically reduce the risk of getting infected.
There is a reason why South Korea officially distributes masks to the public. Everybody in China and Japan wears masks, too.
The thing with this virus, you typically don't know you are infected until it's too late and you already infected a number of others. The goal with masks is not to protect you, but to protect the general population. Any basic mask will do for that purpose.
Because masks don’t reduce transmission. Communication on this has been very clear. Masks don’t help. Frequently washing hands, avoiding contact with others, keeping your surroundings clean, and not touching your face does help. Masks give a false sense of security and reduce supply for those that need them.
I wonder why doctors and nurses use them then. They usw them in most situations. I wonder why they complain about lack of them. Since they are useless.
Sure, they are not as good as respirators. And we as general public should not bulk buy them now.
Common sense says that any kind of barrier between cough or sneeze droplets and my nose or mouth will reduce the probability of me breathing it in. I could tie a scarf around my mouth. It may not be perfect but even if it reduces transmission by 5%, Why not?
CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected. The use of facemasks also is crucial for health workers and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings (at home or in a health care facility).
Only wear a mask if you are ill with COVID-19 symptoms (especially coughing) or looking after someone who may have COVID-19. Disposable face mask can only be used once. If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill then you are wasting a mask. There is a world-wide shortage of masks, so WHO urges people to use masks wisely.
WHO advises rational use of medical masks to avoid unnecessary wastage of precious resources and mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks).
The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to frequently clean your hands, cover your cough with the bend of elbow or tissue and maintain a distance of at least 1 meter (3 feet) from people who are coughing or sneezing. See basic protective measures against the new coronavirus for more information.
Only wear a mask if you are ill with COVID-19 symptoms (especially coughing) or looking after someone who may have COVID-19. Disposable face mask can only be used once. If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill then you are wasting a mask. There is a world-wide shortage of masks, so WHO urges people to use masks wisely.
WHO advises rational use of medical masks to avoid unnecessary wastage of precious resources and mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks).
The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to frequently clean your hands, cover your cough with the bend of elbow or tissue and maintain a distance of at least 1 meter (3 feet) from people who are coughing or sneezing. See basic protective measures against the new coronavirus for more information.
They don't say it useless, just they not recommend it
If using mask helps lower probabilities then you can sew your own. Which means you can wear it without buying one. It might not be as great as official one, but still probabilities.
They can be cleaned. It's not ideal, but very likely better than nothing. Sorry, can't find link, but they tried a variety of different techniques to hit on one that worked.
I own several cloth facemasks, but it is important to remember that reusing a washable can sometimes be worse than nothing, as it can trap and hold the virus and lead to greater exposure than no mask at all.
It takes you 5 min to learn how to put on and take off a n95 mask correctly. Even if you do it wrong you are still protecting other people against your potential infection.
Hmm, I think NHS courses last longer than that. The mask makers sell a [very expensive!] testing kit you can use to check the mask is fitted too, I gather.
> its saliva and finger-prick kit could be ready for sale by June for less than $1 apiece
> Mologic and the Institut Pasteur have joint capacity to produce 8 million tests a year
every little helps, and a low-cost test would obviously be a game-changer. but let's keep things in perspective and be realistic. it sounds quite hypothetical right now. there's no indication it works reliably yet.