COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (15 Viewers)

[sammymvpknight]

And you know what's actually annoying me @sammymvpknight . I'm trying to talk that actual science of that study and you're not engaging me on that part of it.

It’s all good. I’m deleting my posts. Maybe another time but time is up. Take care

 

[SharonT]

So, basically just trolling, then. Waste people's time going down rabbit holes. Then complain.

 

[Doug B]

sammymvpknight said:
Just a question...why would the CDC care at this point? The COVID rates are plummeting. Why would they buy the criticism at this point? There is nothing to gain and everything to lose. Their mask guidance is good enough...it's rarely needed for vaccinated people in most situations. They should probably be used by non-vaccinated individuals....but largely won't be. Surgical masks and N95 masks are quality controlled...of course there is a better chance that they are more effective than the mass majority of cloth masks.

The parts in red ... so far as I'm aware, all of that represents the current consensus and/or the current CDC guidance. And I think almost everyone following the pandemic closely accepts that medical-quality, well-fit surgical and N95 masks will protect better than most all cloth masks in a given setting.

So ... your takes today weren't differing all that much from what of what's considered current "best practices".

 

[Saint_Ward]

Ok, just to be clear, I'm going to lay this out using their Abstract and then I may use more of their research. I have to break this up, since it's over the 20,000 character limit (calling Oye...)

Also to be clear, I think the study is fine, but you have to accept and understand their findings, not make up your own.

Abstract​

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in demand for facemasks to protect against disease transmission. In response to shortages, many public health authorities have recommended homemade masks as acceptable alternatives to surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Yup, and the guidance evolved and quality changed quickly over time. Most cloth masks worn in April 2020 were far more inferior to what was worn a few months later for the most part.

Although mask wearing is intended, in part, to protect others from exhaled, virus-containing particles, few studies have examined particle emission by mask-wearers into the surrounding air. Here, we measured outward emissions of micron-scale aerosol particles by healthy humans performing various expiratory activities while wearing different types of medical-grade or homemade masks.

Correct, and it's good to start doing that. Even though I have an issue with the freaking paper towel mask. I guess they wanted a 'failing' control group, outside of no mask at all. I've done research where I used the "common" thing that we're looking to replace, two or three replacements, and not using anything, which is bad, to show how bad.

Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission.

N95 and medical grade surgical masks are effective. Agree. Lots of data to show that.

These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average.

We had a super cougher in the test.

In contrast, shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric masks confounded explicit determination of their efficacy at reducing expiratory particle emission.

The particles from the home made masks that came off while doing the test made it hard to know if they're effective or not. We can't tell. That's what "confounded explicit determination of their efficacy" means.

Audio analysis of the speech and coughing intensity confirmed that people speak more loudly, but do not cough more loudly, when wearing a mask.

Well, duh. but nice to have the data proving it.

Further work is needed to establish the efficacy of cloth masks at blocking expiratory particles for speech and coughing at varied intensity and to assess whether virus-contaminated fabrics can generate aerosolized fomites,

We don't know if a contaminated mask can actually create an aerosolized formite. We need to study this more.

but the results strongly corroborate the efficacy of medical-grade masks and highlight the importance of regular washing of homemade masks.

We CAN prove that medical grade masks work. We're not sure about cloth masks, but you should wash them, because they seem to eject fabric/dust/etc.

From the intro.. Masks for sure protect you.

Much research has indicated that masks can provide significant protection to the wearer, although proper mask fitting is critical to realizing such benefits12,13,14,15

later in the intro

Laboratory studies provide another means to assess or infer mask effectiveness. Measurement of material filtration efficiencies can provide initial guidance on potential mask effectiveness for preventing outward transmission15,32,33,34,35, but do not directly address mask performance when worn. Early photographic evidence indicates masks can limit the spread of cough-generated particles36. Measurements using simulated breathing with an artificial test head showed the concentration of particles between 0.02 μm-1 μm decreases across masks of different types37. Also using simulated breathing, Green et al.38 found surgical masks effectively reduced outward transmission of endospores and vegetative cells, with seemingly greater reduction of particles > 0.7 μm compared to smaller particles. Using volunteers, Davies et al.32 found that surgical and home-made cotton masks substantially reduce emission of culturable microorganisms from coughing by healthy volunteers, with similar reduction observed over a range of particle sizes (from 0.65 μm to > 7 μm). Milton et al.16 found that surgical masks substantially reduced viral copy numbers in exhaled “fine” aerosol (≤ 5 μm) and “coarse” droplets (> 5 μm) from volunteers having influenza, with greater reduction in the coarse fraction. This result differs somewhat from very recent measurements by Leung et al.13, who showed a statistically significant reduction in shedding of influenza from breathing in coarse but not fine particles with participants wearing surgical masks. They did, however, find that masks reduced shedding of seasonal coronavirus from breathing for both coarse and fine particles, although viral RNA was observed in less than half of the samples even with no mask, complicating the assessment.

A lot of studies have shown that all masks reduce cough generated particles, especially for coarse particles/droplets. It worked for the flu. Then did a viral RNA test in the last one, but not all the maskless had results, so maybe the test sucks. (complicating the assessment).

The above studies all indicate a strong potential for masks to help reduce transmission of respiratory illnesses. To date, however, none have investigated the effectiveness of masks across a range of expiratory activities, and limited consideration has been given to different mask types. Furthermore, no studies to date have considered the masks themselves as potential sources of aerosol particles. It is well established that fibrous cellulosic materials, like cotton and paper, can release large quantities of micron-scale particles (i.e., dust) into the air39,40,41,42. Traditionally, these particles have not been considered a potential concern for respiratory viral diseases like influenza or now COVID-19, since these diseases have been thought to be transmitted via expiratory particles emitted directly from the respiratory tract of infected individuals

No one studies the dust that comes off masks as a possible infection source, because up until lately, we all through large droplets was how most respiratory illnesses spread. So, we should look into this. (I agree).

Early work in the 1940s indicated, however, that infectious influenza virus could be collected from the air after vigorously shaking a contaminated blanket44. Despite this finding, over the next 70 years little attention focused on the possibility of respiratory virus transmission via environmental dust; one exception was a study by Khare and Marr, who investigated a theoretical model for resuspension of contaminated dust from a floor by walking45. Most recently, work by Asadi et al. with influenza virus experimentally established that “aerosolized fomites,” non-respiratory particles aerosolized from virus-contaminated surfaces such as animal fur or paper tissues, can also carry influenza virus and infect susceptible animals

Yeah, it's worth looking into. Can get infected, vs likelihood though. And I'd have to read citation 46 (the last sentence).

Here, we report on experiments assessing the efficacy of unvented KN95 respirators, vented N95 respirators, surgical masks, and homemade paper and cloth masks at reducing aerosol particle emission rates from breathing, speaking, and coughing by healthy individuals. Two key findings are that (i) the surgical masks, unvented KN95 respirators, and, likely, vented N95 respirators all substantially reduce the number of emitted particles, but that (ii) particle emission from homemade cloth masks—likely from shed fiber fragments—can substantially exceed emission when no mask is worn, a result that confounds assessment of their efficacy at blocking expiratory particle emission. Although no direct measurements of virus emission or infectivity were performed here, the results raise the possibility that shed fiber particulates from contaminated cotton masks might serve as sources of aerosolized fomites.

Again, we know the medical grade stuff works, but we can't tell the difference between respiratory particulates and 'mask fiber' particulates, so we can't tell if they're working or not, but it now has us freaked out at the possibility of fiber dust fomites leading to some infections. We need to study this.

Experimental setup​

The general experimental setup used was similar to that in previous work48,49. In brief, an aerodynamic particle sizer (APS, TSI model 3321) was used to count the number of particles between 0.3 to 20 μm in aerodynamic diameter; the APS counting efficiency falls off below ~ 0.5 µm, and thus the particles counted between 0.3 and 0.5 µm likely underestimate the true number. The APS was placed inside a HEPA-filtered laminar flow hood that minimizes background particle concentration

Size range of particles measured. Later they state most observed particles were under 5 microns. So, larger ones are seemingly blocked.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Part 2.

Mask types​

Participants completed each of the four expiratory activities when they wore no mask or one of the 6 different mask or respirator types:

• (i) A surgical mask (ValuMax 5130E-SB) denoted as “Surg.”, tested by 10 participants.
• (ii) An unvented KN95 respirator (GB2626-2006, manufacturer Nine Five Protection Technology, Dongguan, China), tested by 10 participants.
• (iii) A homemade single-layer paper towel mask (Kirkland, 2-PLY sheet, 27.9 cm × 17.7 cm) denoted as “SL-P” and tested by 10 participants.
• (iv) A homemade single-layer t-shirt mask, “SL-T”, made from a new cotton t-shirt (Calvin Klein Men’s Liquid Cotton Polo, 100% cotton, item #1341469), tested by 10 participants.
• (v) A homemade double-layer t-shirt mask, “DL-T”, made from the same t-shirt material as the SL-T mask, and tested by 10 participants.
• (vi)A vented N95 respirator (NIOSH N95, Safety Plus, TC-84A-7448)) tested by 2 participants; shortages at the time of testing precluded a larger sample size. The primary difference between an N95 and KN95 respirator is where the mask is certified, in the US. (N95) or China (KN95).

The stupid paper towel mask was something they found on craftyjournal.com not the CDC. Even though, the joke's on me, it actually performed pretty decently.

Mask washing​

To test whether washing of the homemade cloth masks had any effect on the particle emission rate, a subset of 4 participants were asked to bring their double-layer t-shirt mask home and to hand-wash it with water and soap, rinse it thoroughly, and let it air-dry. These participants then returned and repeated the four activities with a brand-new DL-T mask and their washed DL-T mask to provide a direct comparison of washed versus unwashed fabric.

Interesting.

Later they also tested the masks by rubbing them with their hands, to see how much particulate comes off.

To help interpret our findings we also quantified the particles emitted from manual rubbing of mask fabrics. The results (Fig. 5a) show that, in the absence of any expiratory activity, rubbing a surgical mask fabric generated on average 1.5 particles per second, while KN95 and N95 respirators produced fewer than 1 particle per second. In contrast, rubbing the homemade paper and cotton masks aerosolized significant number of particles, with the highest values for SL-P (8.0 particles/s) and U-SL-T (7.2 particles/s) masks. Intriguingly, we found that the size distribution of the particles aerosolized from homemade mask fabrics via manual rubbing (Fig. 5b) was qualitatively different from when participants wore the same masks to perform expiratory activities. An extra peak appeared at approximately 6 µm and the fraction of small particles dropped to below 27%, suggesting that the frictional forces of fibers against fibers helped fragment and dislodge larger particulates into the air. Importantly, however, manual rubbing produced a sizeable number of particulates in the size range of 0.3 to 2 µm, commensurate with the range observed while the masks were worn during expiratory activities.

So, basically they've proven that the particulates from respiratory activities for the home made masks were mostly from the mask its self. i.e. the fibers/dust. Not respiratory particles.

Since the cotton masks were all prepared from fabric that was brand new and unwashed, as a final test we hypothesized that perhaps washing the masks would remove surface-bound dust and otherwise friable material and decrease the emission rate. Our experiments do not corroborate this hypothesis. Handwashing the double-layer t-shirt mask with soap and water followed by air-drying yielded no significant change in the particle emission rate as compared to the original unwashed masks

One wash didn't seem to do anything, but the masks were originally made from an 'as bought t-shirt".

Our results clearly indicate that wearing surgical masks or unvented KN95 respirators reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask. However, for the homemade cotton masks, the measured particle emission rate either remained unchanged (DL-T) or increased by as much as 492% (SL-T) compared to no mask for all of the expiratory activities. For jaw movement, the particle emission rates for homemade paper and cloth masks were an order of magnitude larger than that of no mask (Fig. 2d). These observations, along with our results from manual mask rubbing experiments (Fig. 5), provide strong evidence of substantial shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers of the paper and cloth masks owing to mechanical action40. The higher particle emission rate for jaw movement than for breathing is an indication of greater frictional shedding of the paper towel and cotton masks during jaw movement compared to breathing, at least as tested here. Likewise, the difference in the size distributions of mask rubbing and with-mask expiratory activities is likely due to the vigorous frictional force applied by hand on the masks. Regardless of the larger particles (> 5 µm), rubbing mask fabrics generates a considerable number of particles in the range of 0.3–5 µm similar to that observed for the expiratory activities. This finding corroborates the interpretation that some proportion of the particulates observed during expiration were particulates aerosolized from the masks themselves.

The home made masks are 'frying", so that's where most of the particles are coming from.

he substantial particle shedding by the cloth masks confounds determination of the cloth mask efficacy for reducing outward emission of particles produced from the expiratory activity. Measured material filtration efficiencies vary widely for different cloth materials32,34,35,63. The influence of particle shedding on such determinations has not been previously considered; our results raise the possibility that particle shedding has led to underestimated material filtration efficiencies for certain materials. While the material efficiency of the cotton masks was not determined here, we note that the use of the double-layer cotton masks reduced the emission of larger particles (both on a normalized and absolute basis), indicating some reasonable efficacy towards reduction of the expiratory particle emission. Further work differentiating between expiratory and shed particles, possibly based on composition, can help establish the specific efficacy of the cloth masks towards expiratory particles. That the masks shed fibers from mechanical stimulation indicates care must be taken when removing and cleaning (for reusable masks) potentially contaminated masks so as to not dislodge deposited micro-organisms.

The mask fiber shedding makes it hard to tell how well the mask stops respiratory particles shedding. Fiber shedding may be a problem. We should look into it. We need to be able to tell the difference between the two. Handing and cleaning masks should be done with care, since it may create aerosol particulates. Which, could maybe get contaminated and maybe lead to infection? maybe.


OK, this one is important..

As a final comment, we emphasize that here we only measured the physical dynamics of outward aerosol particle emission for different expiratory activities and mask types. Redirected expiratory airflow, involving exhaled air moving up past the nose or out the side of the mask, were not measured here but should be considered in future work. Likewise, more sophisticated biological techniques are necessary to gauge mask efficacy at blocking emission of viable pathogens. Our work does raise the possibility, however, that virus-contaminated masks could release aerosolized fomites into the air by shedding fiber particulates from the mask fabric. Since mask efficacy experiments are typically only conducted with fresh, not used, masks, future work assessing emission of viable pathogens should consider this possibility in more detail. Our work also raises questions about whether homemade masks using other fabrics, such as polyester, might be more efficient than cotton in terms of blocking expiratory particles while minimizing shedding of fabric particulates, and whether repeated washings might affect homemade masks. Future experiments using controlled bursts of clean air through the masks will help to resolve the source of these non-expiratory particles. Nonetheless, as a precaution, our results suggest that individuals using homemade fabric masks should take care to wash or otherwise sterilize them on a regular basis to minimize the possibility of emission of aerosolized fomites.

Conclusions​

These observations directly demonstrate that wearing of surgical masks or KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, substantially reduce the number of particles emitted from breathing, talking, and coughing. While the efficacy of cloth and paper masks is not as clear and confounded by shedding of mask fibers, the observations indicate it is likely that they provide some reductions in emitted expiratory particles, in particular the larger particles (> 0.5 μm). We have not directly measured virus emission; nonetheless, our results strongly imply that mask wearing will reduce emission of virus-laden aerosols and droplets associated with expiratory activities, unless appreciable shedding of viable viruses on mask fibers occurs.

Our observations are consistent with suggestions that mask wearing can help in mitigating pandemics associated with respiratory disease. Our results highlight the importance of regular changing of disposable masks and washing of homemade masks, and suggests that special care must be taken when removing and cleaning the masks.

So, that would lead me to state that your original conclusion is wrong. You shouldn't just use one or two figures to make a scientific argument. The authors didn't.

Essentially, the study showed that the use of homemade masks at best is not worse than not wearing a mask at all. But in most cases, including talking and coughing, homemade masks INCREASED viral emission. But how can this be? I was told that homemade masks will help me from spreading COVID?!? The reason is common sense, and something that will be incredibly intuitive if you've ever spoke to someone who has worn one of these masks. The reason is that you TALK louder in these masks...because otherwise people cannot hear you.

Take home...don't think that you are helping humanity by wearing your homemade masks out in the community. Our best science suggests that you are making matters worse...even more so than the non-mask wearers. If you insist on masking up...wear a surgical mask. They are essentially as good as the N95 masks...they are much more breathable so you don't have to increase your voice while talking to people...and it saves the N95 masks for those who really need it.

No it didn't. They didn't study or test for 'viral emission' either.

You aren't making matters worse by wearing a 'home made mask'. There may be some things that aren't being considered, such as how well you clean your masks, how you handle them, fabric choices (they mention polyester as maybe being a better alternative to cotton). you can say it may not be the best choice, but most people know that. You can't prove something true that the data doesn't show.

I do agree that there seems to be a lot of evidence saying a surgical style mask is a great mask to wear and just as reasonably effective as a N95 or KN95 mask.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Overall doing really well against Covid. A few small hot spots, but you I think they'll end up as blips.



Even MO is pretty flat, despite the per capita.



But some counties may need to pay attention.



Audrain county, as an example. Close to all time highs. Still low counts, but not many people live there.



County has about 25k people.

 

[nolaswede]

Although, we are doing a lot better now, it still seems like Louisiana’s # of deaths are still too high. Is there anywhere to find the breakdown of the different parishes etc. Looks like a lot of newspapers etc have stopped posting this information and I only hear broad updates on WWL at noon.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Although, we are doing a lot better now, it still seems like Louisiana’s # of deaths are still too high. Is there anywhere to find the breakdown of the different parishes etc. Looks like a lot of newspapers etc have stopped posting this information and I only hear broad updates on WWL at noon.

Louisiana Coronavirus Map and Case Count

See the latest charts and maps of coronavirus cases, deaths, hospitalizations and vaccinations in Louisiana.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Saint_Ward]

Louisiana

 

[faceman]

Although, we are doing a lot better now, it still seems like Louisiana’s # of deaths are still too high. Is there anywhere to find the breakdown of the different parishes etc. Looks like a lot of newspapers etc have stopped posting this information and I only hear broad updates on WWL at noon.

In addition to the info Ward posted above, Your state dept. of health is a good source of info. They update frequently. I use my state of Ms. for the most recent info. It also gives an option to break down statistics from each county. La. does the same for each parrish.

Louisiana Coronavirus | La Dept. of Health

The Louisiana Department of Health protects and promotes health and ensures access to medical, preventive and rehabilitative services for all citizens of the State of Louisiana.

ldh.la.gov

 

[superchuck500]

Delta is now 1 in 5 in the US, and more in some areas. Watch to see how that ratio changes over the next four to six weeks and whether it has any impact on case counts.

 

[Arathrael]

Delta is now 1 in 5 in the US, and more in some areas. Watch to see how that ratio changes over the next four to six weeks and whether it has any impact on case counts.

For reference, Delta reached 1 in 5 cases in the UK around late April. At that point, the overall case rate in the UK was still declining, with the rise in Delta cases being masked by the decline in Alpha cases. The overall UK case rate stopped dropping around May 6th, at which point Delta was around 1 in 4 cases, and started going back up into a third wave around mid-May, at which point Delta was 3 in 4 cases.

There's a lot of factors in play though. I think one thing could be that the UK has been relatively more successful in vaccine up take in older age groups, but this has left the younger age groups largely unvaccinated, and that's where a lot of these cases are. Whereas the USA has vaccinations through all age groups, which might slow the overall spread of Delta a bit. But then it depends on local demographics and vaccination uptake.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Delta is now 1 in 5 in the US, and more in some areas. Watch to see how that ratio changes over the next four to six weeks and whether it has any impact on case counts.

Yeah, I'm not that concerned about it. I think we'd see a more significant uptick in overall case count. I might be early in this assessment. it seems to be more prevalent, but overall numbers are incredibly low. A big % change is still a small number change.



Missouri will be the test, assuming Delta is there. They're on an upswing, but it's still hovering around all time lows.




It looks like the slight uptick in cases is mostly around the 18-24 age group. But the data is hard to see.



Another look showing that age group has been by far the most infected in MO, and also have pretty much no repercussions for it. Only 12 deaths in that group in MO.

 

[Saint_Ward]

To add, you can see why younger folks are the bigger percentage.. they're one of the least vaccinated in that state.

They have some cool stats.

COVID Data Tracker

CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.

health.mo.gov

 

[Saint_Ward]

MO racial info on vaccinations as a percentage of total population.

Edit: I want to add that these are UNDER counts, since if they didn't provide age data (or the state wasn't collecting it), they those vaccinated folks aren't in this data either.