Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Coronavirus: The Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Coronavirus: The Thread

Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:04
  #16461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Peter H View Post
Just a reminder:
Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...d3083.full.pdf
Mandates for mask use in public during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, worsened by global shortage of commercial supplies, have led to widespread use of homemade masks and mask alternatives. It is assumed that wearing such masks reduces the likelihood for an infected person to spread the disease, but many of these mask designs have not been tested in practice. We have demonstrated a simple optical measurement method to evaluate the efficacy of masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech. In proof-of-principle studies, we compared a variety of commonly available mask types and observed that some mask types approach the performance of standard surgical masks, while some mask alternatives, such as neck gaiters or bandanas, offer very little protection. Our measurement setup is inexpensive and can be built and operated by nonexperts, allowing for rapid evaluation of mask performance during speech, sneezing, or coughing.




Interesting. But the words “it is assumed” and “have not been tested in practice” tend to jump out a bit at me.

Try telling the public that their aircraft flying them to Lanzarote “has not been tested in practice” and “it is assumed” it is man enough for the job but don’t worry, you can set up this simple little test quite easily to test its efficacy.even if you’re a ‘nonexpert’ you can do it!

For an experiment to reflect accurate results, it surely needs constant measurements - a control - and measured variants?


I know that’s a bit of a trite answer, but we’ve all been asked to put our faith (and to a greater extent, our lives) in these things based on pretty flimsy scientific research and evidence apart from a few cartoons. Talk about trying to blind the public with ‘pseudo scientific’ graphs and info!



BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:26
  #16462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 76
Posts: 960
Everyone of them suffers the MAJOR disadvantage that they cover part of the face so that it is not possible to see people smiles...OK sometimes scowls....!! In some medical situations they are probably required.... To go shopping.....I do not think so!!
They also make it more difficult to hear people speak. I enjoy reacting with people and seeing their facial expressions. In time many of them are discarded and left lying around as litter.
"""Talk about trying to blind the public with ‘pseudo scientific’ graphs and info! """
Yes, all part of the propaganda we are being subjected to .....
Planemike is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:31
  #16463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 305
Thanks for the post Peter H

BWSBoy6, I think there is an element of straw clutching in your response. There would be certain ethical considerations with trying the experiment in a live Covid environment and there are reasonable extrapolations than can be made from the laboratory to the real world. For example, it is reasonable to assume that droplet suppression would be similar, whether those droplets had virons in them or not. The experiment gave each type of mask a similar challenge so it is also reasonable to compare the results of one type of mask against another.

Personally, I would be happy to accept this experiment as evidence that improvised face coverings will reduce droplet spread and the better the design and fit,the better the effect.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:37
  #16464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kineton
Age: 67
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Interesting. But the words “it is assumed” and “have not been tested in practice” tend to jump out a bit at me.

Try telling the public that their aircraft flying them to Lanzarote “has not been tested in practice” and “it is assumed” it is man enough for the job but don’t worry, you can set up this simple little test quite easily to test its efficacy.even if you’re a ‘nonexpert’ you can do it!

For an experiment to reflect accurate results, it surely needs constant measurements - a control - and measured variants?


I know that’s a bit of a trite answer, but we’ve all been asked to put our faith (and to a greater extent, our lives) in these things based on pretty flimsy scientific research and evidence apart from a few cartoons. Talk about trying to blind the public with ‘pseudo scientific’ graphs and info!
The words you have chosen to quote form the preamble to the investigation they conducted to test the efficacy of the various masks and face coverings. From the graph I see showing their results it would seem most available masks do a pretty good job at reducing the transmission of aerosols. I'm not sure what a "pseudo scientific" graph is.
rickyricks is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:53
  #16465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Interesting. But the words “it is assumed” and “have not been tested in practice” tend to jump out a bit at me.
Jeez, trying reading for comprehension! The text states: "It is assumed that wearing such masks reduces the likelihood for an infected person to spread the disease, but many of these mask designs have not been tested in practice". The first part of the sentence relates to the premise/rationale for the study, the second a simple statement that various mask designs haven't been tested in practice, which they then go on to do. I'm assuming you're not versed in scientific investigation?

A simple study with accessible results, and a chart which is eminently understandable even to the man in the street, what more do you want?
dead_pan is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:55
  #16466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by rickyricks View Post
I'm not sure what a "pseudo scientific" graph is.
One he doesn't understand or agree with from a position of ignorance.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 13:56
  #16467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 305
The following mask studies may also be useful:

https://theconversation.com/what-fab...sk-from-149313
Contains a comparison in effectiveness of different materials

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e039424.full
Ability of fabric face mask materials to filter ultrafine particles at coughing velocity
Ninthace is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 14:04
  #16468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 944
Pah! The BMJ, the propaganda mouthpiece for a cabal of cranks and weirdos. What do they know about medicine, eh??...
dead_pan is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 14:13
  #16469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by rickyricks View Post
The words you have chosen to quote form the preamble to the investigation they conducted to test the efficacy of the various masks and face coverings. From the graph I see showing their results it would seem most available masks do a pretty good job at reducing the transmission of aerosols. I'm not sure what a "pseudo scientific" graph is.
A pseudo scientific graph is one that looks ‘official’ and chooses to present certain facts to support a particular argument rather based on hard impartial evidence. Not unlike the ones produced by those on the other side of the fence that believe this is all a conspiracy. Statistics can be manipulated and interpreted anyway that suits the presenter. You wouldn’t accept ‘woolly’ science from the anti vaxxers, so why accept it from your own ‘side’

I’m very much in the middle of all of this. I don’t doubt the virus is extremely serious - to a certain cohort - and that we need to exercise good hygiene and general common sense. I don’t subscribe to ‘the new order’ ‘Bill Gates is implanting us etc etc but it genuinely concerns me how we are so willing to swallow ‘official’ advice and seem to have lost the ability to make our own judgements. I grudgingly comply with mask wearing but nothing convinces me the instructions from the government about their use was more about making a statement of, “Look at us. We’re being decisive. If we tell you to wear cloth face coverings, you’ll all feel safer and a bit more in control. Don’t actually know if they work, but that’s not the point. You’ll be happier and more confident going out shopping and putting money back into the economy”

BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 14:15
  #16470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by dead_pan View Post
Pah! The BMJ, the propaganda mouthpiece for a cabal of cranks and weirdos. What do they know about medicine, eh??...
Yep. The very same BMJ that queried and came to the conclusion that they saw no evidence to support the efficacy of cloth face coverings.
BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 14:37
  #16471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Yep. The very same BMJ that queried and came to the conclusion that they saw no evidence to support the efficacy of cloth face coverings.
I think you're getting mixed up, chum. The BMJ is a journal (clue's in the name). They simply publish the findings of researchers who submit their papers, after peer review. AFAIK it doesn't have an editorial section, like say the Daily Mail, and as such they don't express an opinion per se.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 14:38
  #16472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kineton
Age: 67
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
A pseudo scientific graph is one that looks ‘official’ and chooses to present certain facts to support a particular argument rather based on hard impartial evidence.”
Well, I've read the published article in full and, as a scientist, I consider their experimental study quite rigorous and for the life of me I cannot see why a bunch of academics would have an agenda to push for the wearing of face masks. Remember, when this whole thing kicked off there was much debate about the effectiveness of wearing face masks: this study certainly gives me confidence in continuing to wear one to protect others in the right circumstances.
rickyricks is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 14:41
  #16473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Yep. The very same BMJ that queried and came to the conclusion that they saw no evidence to support the efficacy of cloth face coverings.
At the time that was true. I was a mask sceptic and trawled the literature when the subject first came up. The was very little on improvised face coverings. I found one, which was related to flu research but that was looking at flow in the opposite direction, I.e. as protection to the wearer. That concluded there was only a slight benefit. Weighed against the change in behaviour mask wearing might produce, the feeling of being safe when you weren’t, I came to the conclusion that masks were not a good idea and the idea was just a government figleaf.

Since then the emphasis has changed to community protection and much more research has been done. Looking at the latest research, and seeing it in the context of social distancing and community protection, mask wearing makes sense. It is not a panacea, but it will help reduce transmission.

Turning to BWSBoy6
A pseudo scientific graph is one that looks ‘official’ and chooses to present certain facts to support a particular argument rather based on hard impartial evidence. Not unlike the ones produced by those on the other side of the fence that believe this is all a conspiracy. Statistics can be manipulated and interpreted anyway that suits the presenter. You wouldn’t accept ‘woolly’ science from the anti vaxxers, so why accept it from your own ‘side’

This is pure nonsense. Have ever published anything in the scientific literature? I have. Papers published in Journals go through a review process and the results of experiments have to be reproducible. The papers quoted do not contain statistics, it is experimental data. The whole essence of the scientific method is it is impartial. You would be a brave individual to make the same accusation to the authors of these papers in open print under your own name.


Ninthace is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 15:10
  #16474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 76
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by dead_pan View Post
Pah! The BMJ, the propaganda mouthpiece for a cabal of cranks and weirdos. What do they know about medicine, eh??...
Think you mean the BMA..... British Medical Association.... The Doctors trades union.
Planemike is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 15:59
  #16475 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,010
The BMJ is a journal (clue's in the name). They simply publish the findings of researchers who submit their papers, after peer review. AFAIK it doesn't have an editorial section, like say the Daily Mail, and as such they don't express an opinion per se.
It most definitely does, and it’s position has often been controversial…

https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/04/...-fiona-godlee/

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/0...s-controversy/

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4804

ORAC is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 16:17
  #16476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
Think you mean the BMA..... British Medical Association.... The Doctors trades union.
I thought only the cavalry and guards regiments regarded doctoring as a trade as opposed to a profession.
Mind you, some of the doctors I have trained - you could be right.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 16:28
  #16477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
It most definitely does, and it’s position has often been controversial…
"AFAIK". Luckily I've covered myself with my jest about the BMJ (no, not the BMA).

Its bizarre that such a learned journal would re-imagine themselves as a campaigning journal, then question the utility of face masks, and then publish a paper (per Ninthace's link) which concludes: "Our findings suggest that face masks made from layered common fabric can help filter ultrafine particles and provide some protection for the wearer when commercial face masks are unavailable."
dead_pan is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 17:03
  #16478 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,010
So, government following the French route to get the 18-30s to get vaccinated.

From September access to nightclubs will require a vaccine passport proving the holder has had both vaccination shots with the second at least 14 days before. A negative PCR test will not be acceptable.

Night clubs have currently been singled out - other types of crowded indoor venues are to be specified.

The night club industry is, to say the least, unhappy.
ORAC is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 17:11
  #16479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
So, government following the French route to get the 18-30s to get vaccinated.

From September access to nightclubs will require a vaccine passport proving the holder has had both vaccination shots with the second at least 14 days before. A negative PCR test will not be acceptable.

Night clubs have currently been singled out - other types of crowded indoor venues are to be specified.

The night club industry is, to say the least, unhappy.
You could consult the industry affected and worlk out what is achievable, how to do what and perhaps a even agree a timleline. Then again you could just sling it out in a press conference. One would like to think there are gaps in the goverment's incompetence but they seem to be a long way apart.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 17:13
  #16480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 69
Posts: 62
I think this is what Tony Blair suggested back in may. Tubs slow on the uptake.
Effluent Man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.