EPTAlso it’s prime flu season, and the flu this year is more unpleasant than usual. Fuck.
Coronavirus and You - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Also it’s prime flu season, and the flu this year is more unpleasant than usual. Fuck. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 06 2020 12:12 KwarK wrote: Getting Coronavirus early before the hospitals are flooded and when treatment is a priority is absolutely rational. I'd agree if there wasn't a decent risk of long term complications. Preliminary studies coming out of China are already showing similar long lasting damage to alveoli as seen with SARS (10% of survivors left disabled from respiratory damage). SARS patients also have a very high right of physiatric illness as well as CFS. CoV might not be as bad, but with even a decent probability of complications...I'd still strongly argue working to avoid infection is the better move. If it was getting sick only, then I would be in 100% agreement. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22399 Posts
On March 06 2020 12:45 thePunGun wrote: I don't think that's a good idea, it's not like chicken pox you get them once and you're done. The illness Covid-19 can come back, there have been cases where it was back after 2-3 weeks and patients had to be quarantined again. Considering, the development of a potent vaccine (potent being the keyword here!) will most likely take over a year (early estimates are spring/summer 2021), voluntary infecting yourself with the virus can be life threateningly dangerous. The death rate of 3.4% may not sound like much, but to put it into perspective it's over 30! times the death rate of the flu. I've heard different reporting on it coming back and death rates more recently so I'm skeptical of that without a recent source. Generally I'm pretty healthy though without underlying issues and I'm one of those "don't you ever get sick?!?" people. Which is some combination of a decent immune system and not being a whiner imo fwiw. I wouldn't be getting it for no reason or as a macho thing, I just would prefer to contract it in as controlled a manner as I reasonably could because it's already all around me. Not my home specifically but it's already 2 degrees of separation away and clearly not contained in the slightest at this point. I hadn't even thought about Kwark's point that if for some unforeseen reason I did need to be hospitalized, there's a limited amount of time before that might not be an option for me locally. Basically I'm going to be exposed to this thing (if I haven't already) so I kinda just want to get it over with and was curious if there was more to be gained than just a little peace of mind. Hadn't even considered that hospital beds will be in limited supply once this really takes hold nationally so sooner is better than later in that regard. Definitely not buying a virus I can catch for free though. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
It was kind of surreal watching the media spread blatant lies and grossly misleading things like comparing it to the flu or that masks are useless. It was the first time in my life I seriously had to question myself if I wasn't falling for some conspiracy/doomer stuff, because it felt like randos on reddit were more accurately predicting the development of this than world leaders. Currently cases outside of China double every 4 days, which mathematically would mean the whole world is infected in 80 days. I expect Chinese style lockdowns in Europe very soon, as measures in Europe are clearly not enough. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7063 Posts
On March 06 2020 15:15 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: It was kind of surreal watching the media spread blatant lies and grossly misleading things like comparing it to the flu or that masks are useless.. The virus does not spread through airways so the masks are pretty much useless.. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9233 Posts
On March 06 2020 15:48 Luolis wrote: The virus does not spread through airways so the masks are pretty much useless.. Ahem, it's particle borne so yes, liquid droplets exhaled through coughing or sneezing spread the virus. Don't spread false information. Masks do protect, but only with respect to their protection equipment level. Simple face masks will only protect the carrier from exhaling the virus for a short while until they are wet, says our Robert Koch Institut. Maybe Ghostcom can do a daily fact check here :D They are a risk for healthy people as we tend to touch the face more often, increasing the risk of a smear infection. There's supposedly not enough evidence to suggest they properly protect healthy individuals. Unless it's a masks with higher protection level. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On March 06 2020 15:48 Luolis wrote: The virus does not spread through airways so the masks are pretty much useless.. I mean there's a reason why healthcare workers wear them... Coronaviruses are generally thought to be spread from person-to-person through respiratory droplets. -CDC | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On March 06 2020 15:48 Luolis wrote: The virus does not spread through airways so the masks are pretty much useless.. Not exactly true at all. "The main mode of transmission is respiratory droplets" that can be produced by speaking and coughing, says Dr. Adam Lauring, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. "These droplets then can find their way into the mouths, noses of other people nearby." - www.npr.org Masks are worthwhile measures to keep sick individuals from expirating or expectorating droplets into their environment, causing others to get sick. There's evidence that in Hong Kong wide-spread and proper use of masks among the population helps mitigate spread in this way. Important to note - many (most) western countries do not have the resources to give masks to everyone, thus the haphazard messages pleading for people not to buy up or hoard masks. To anyone else stateside, if you are young, healthy, and not immunocompromised, leave the masks for people that really need them. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7063 Posts
On March 06 2020 16:13 Artisreal wrote: Ahem, it's particle borne so yes, liquid droplets exhaled through coughing or sneezing spread the virus. Masks do protect, but only with respect to their protection equipment level. Simple face masks will only protect the carrier from exhaling the virus for a short while until they are wet, says our Robert Koch Institut. Maybe Ghostcom can do a daily fact check here :D They are a risk for healthy people as we tend to touch the face more often, increasing the risk of a smear infection. There's supposedly not enough evidence to suggest they properly protect healthy individuals. Unless it's a masks with higher protection level. Yea i simplified it a bit. Point is, the masks aren't a first line of defense by any means. If you use them properly they can help a bit, but more than that taking care of your normal hygiene is much more important. Also as you said, if you use it incorrectly or touch your face you still get infected anyway. Stocking up on masks as a normal civilian is just fucking dumb. Also they do help in stopping spreading it if youre infected yourself if you use one. But ye you are correct in that, my bad for simplifying. EDIT: On March 06 2020 16:23 p4NDemik wrote: Not exactly true at all. Masks are worthwhile measures to keep sick individuals from expirating or expectorating droplets into their environment, causing others to get sick. There's evidence that in Hong Kong a wide-spread and proper use of masks among the population helps mitigate spread in this way. Important to note - many (most) western countries do not have the resources to give masks to everyone, thus the haphazard messages pleading for people not to buy up or hoard masks. To anyone else stateside, if you are young, healthy, and not immunocompromised, leave the masks for people that really need them. See answer above ^ | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6208 Posts
On March 06 2020 15:48 Luolis wrote: The virus does not spread through airways so the masks are pretty much useless.. The first half of this sentence is totally false - the disease is spread via respiratory droplets. The second half of this sentence is also incorrect. Masks are useful in many circumstances, but are not recommended for the healthy public due to limited supply. Do not spread false and misleading information under the guise of "simplifying". | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7063 Posts
On March 06 2020 16:34 Belisarius wrote: You did not simplify anything. You are blatantly wrong. The first half of this sentence is totally false - the disease is spread via respiratory droplets. The second half of this sentence is also incorrect. Masks are useful in many circumstances, but are not recommended for the healthy public due to limited supply. Do not spread false and misleading information under the guise of "simplifying". Learn to read rat User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9233 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12125 Posts
On March 06 2020 16:33 BlackJack wrote: I work in an emergency room on the west coast that has already been hit by coronavirus. We are having to ration/stash masks. If you work outside of the ED the hospital has been stripped of masks nearly entirely and you can only get some if there's a patient with isolation orders. From what I'm hearing from friends at other hospitals this is pretty standard now. I've heard rumors that one of the staff at one of our sister hospitals was caught trying to sell a box of N95s for $500. What's the standard prize on such box? Just a curiousity. I must say it makes me nervous that user with the nick p4NDemik is writing here  | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6208 Posts
N95s used to be a few bucks each. I'm seeing them for as much as 10-15 now. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12125 Posts
I love how everybody is giving zero fucks here | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
opterown
Australia54752 Posts
On March 06 2020 12:12 KwarK wrote: Getting Coronavirus early before the hospitals are flooded and when treatment is a priority is absolutely rational. On the other hand, getting it later when we have a better idea of the natural history of the disease and some idea of what treatments work (or don't) also makes a lot of sense. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12125 Posts
On March 06 2020 18:32 opterown wrote: On the other hand, getting it later when we have a better idea of the natural history of the disease and some idea of what treatments work (or don't) also makes a lot of sense. Also in many cases the evolution of the virus goes into less lethal form as then it spreads more and is able to survive longer. Which may not be the case here, just saying it usually goes the optimistic path. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22399 Posts
On March 06 2020 18:45 deacon.frost wrote: Also in many cases the evolution of the virus goes into less lethal form as then it spreads more and is able to survive longer. Which may not be the case here, just saying it usually goes the optimistic path. It's been floating (meaning infected people) around long and close enough that I can't even definitively say I haven't been exposed, so it may be a moot point. Anyone know if there is or will be a test that would show if I had already had it and recovered? | ||
| ||
