Coronavirus

I do, every time I am in a social situation as described in that article I posted.

As for the covidiots who shun individuals using PPE equipment… perhaps when they are laying on a hospital gurney/bed wondering whether or not they will actually be able to make it out of the hospital with their life… then and only then will they see the reason behind actually using PPE. Maybe if they did… they wouldn’t be possibly facing death. Maybe if they did…they won’t have infected their own family members, friends, and co-workers. Live and learn. :smirk:

4 Likes

People look at me so weird when I wear mine. I get some seriously nasty looks because I had just completed a job. I forgot to take it off. It’s comfortable compared to those N95 masks. OMG the looks I got!!! So so sad. It protects me and them.

Ok, I understand why they freak out but everyone’s safe when I wear it. P100 intakes and a 6001 cartridge in front filled with free blown polypropylene fiber (N95 filling) with an N95 filter to finish it off.

1 Like

I imagine anything that was saved may be still in Jerusalem, with the Roman Catholic Church, or locked up someplace else and no one knows about it. It’s a shame because we can use their rudimentary studies to find out what they did to resolve the issue. It’s better than nothing.

1 Like

(The Washington Post, May 13, 2020):

Experiment shows human speech generates droplets that linger in the air for more than 8 minutes

Ordinary speech can emit small respiratory droplets that linger in the air for at least eight minutes and potentially much longer … This new study did not involve the coronavirus or any other virus, but instead looked at how people generate respiratory droplets when they speak. The experiment did not look at large droplets but instead focused on small droplets that can linger in the air much longer. These droplets still could potentially contain enough virus particles to represent an infectious dose, the authors said. Louder speech produces more droplets, they note. The paper estimates that one minute of “loud speaking” generates “at least 1,000 virion-containing droplet nuclei that remain airborne” for more than eight minutes.

“This study is the most accurate measure of the size, number and frequency of droplets that leave the mouth during a normal conversation and shower any listeners within range,” said Benjamin Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University-Texarkana who was not involved in the research. … “Speech creates droplets that breathing alone does not. That much is clear,” said Andrew Noymer, a University of California at Irvine epidemiologist who also was not part of the new research. “Big mouths of the world, beware. You’re putting the rest of us at risk.”

.

The referenced article (PNAS, May 13, 2020):

The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets
and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Speech droplets generated by asymptomatic carriers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are increasingly considered to be a likely mode of disease transmission. Highly sensitive laser light scattering observations have revealed that loud speech can emit thousands of oral fluid droplets per second. In a closed, stagnant air environment, they disappear from the window of view with time constants in the range of 8 to 14 min, which corresponds to droplet nuclei of ca. 4 μm diameter, or 12- to 21-μm droplets prior to dehydration. These observations confirm that there is a substantial probability that normal speaking causes airborne virus transmission in confined environments.

According to Stokes’ law, the terminal velocity of a falling droplet scales as the square of its diameter. Once airborne, speech-generated droplets rapidly dehydrate due to evaporation, thereby decreasing in size, and slowing their fall. … the probability that speech droplets pass on an infection when emitted by a virus carrier must take into account how long droplet nuclei remain airborne [ proportional to d^(−2) ] and the probability that droplets encapsulate at least one virion.

2 Likes

I guess the world is going back to work tomorrow or I missed the boat that tomorrow is a global holiday??? Crickets… I don’t even hear crickets on the site tonight. The question is begged… where is everyone? I never get the memo… lol

I guess this paranoia about this disease is taking over “me” (oops). I really wonder… Is COVID-19 going to hit this planet like a tidal wave in the fall, or have we seen the worst of it?

2 Likes

Speak for yourself on that subject.

2 Likes

Sorry. my keyboard doesn’t keep up sometimes. Thanks for pointing that out. And yes, it’s a question I wonder about.

The administration is confident it’s got a handle on it. I know for sure they’re buying up all the PPE masks (It’s a good thing. That’s something FEMA should have on hand). I sort of expected it to start thinning out though by now. I say that because more and more tickets I get offered are demanding N95 masks, not the home made items. I can’t get them. Not for lack of trying. I have a respirator though but it’s shunned. “It’s too drastic”.

Raven-Knightly, you posted on droplets lasting 8 minutes in the air (max?). I imagine fine, atomized droplets too (similar to vape clouds or smaller)? I’m wondering if we can modify items like HEPA filters (believe it or not, I took a vacuum cleaner bag and folded it accordion like crazy. It’s actually not that difficult to breathe through)?

Normal allows us to get back to work. Normal is, “ok, I have to wear the Hoover mask” (and FDR didn’t want to name a dam after the man… go figure). It may also open up avenues for other fields. Who knows?

1 Like

Funny, I heard the same thing yesterday from a Dutch researcher.
He claims the distancing is fine outside but doesn’t work indoors.
Virus keeps circulating especially in places like churches where a lot of singing is going on, concerthalls and the like.

A large group singing spreads a hell of a lot more droplets around than one person speaking.

He thinks the indoor mass events are largely responsible for the spread. On top of that he disputes the effectiveness of home isolation.

Families stuck together in a house, one person gets infected and infects the rest.

He might have a point, considering the places we thought were going to get hit the worst, like refugee camps and countries around Africa have seen a lot less of Corona than we have.

They are all outside and their houses are not built like ours, plenty of wind blowing through it, or they live in tents.
Airconditioning can apparently be a big spreader of the virus, I think that might’ve been the main problem in care facilities.
Lets not open the windows and expose the vulnerable to a draft, use the airco.

Lets hope they figure it out. As long as they don’t, we run a risk of getting advice that is only going to makes things worse.

The problem with this opening up is that there are too many different branches opening up at the same time.
That makes it rather difficult to pinpoint the problem if/when it comes back.

5 Likes

My paranoia rests in my work. Subcontracted techs are now being demanded to wear official N95 masks (only). A respirator is to drastic, and the home made masks won’t work. After trying to get them from other sources (friends from other countries getting them from China then sending them to me, or just getting the ones I ordered 2+ months ago found in shipping…)

At that point, normal doesn’t look so normal to me.

Oh… and given all of these issues, I don’t think investing $30 in a respirator if it’s bad in the fall isn’t such a bad idea. It’s reusable, can be sterilized, and everyone isn’t rushing out to get one. They can be purchased at a more modest rate.

Also forgot to add… simple and quick work on a printer at the hospital, my 2nd to last N95 mask, Safety glasses\goggles… I got scolded for the goggle\glasses by a Doctor. “You’re frightening patients!” (no one had COVID-19 in the hospital)

I had to inform him that getting toner in the eyes is excruciatingly painful… and they weren’t chemistry goggles, just spatter protection safety glasses… It’s been a day…

3 Likes

There have been a few accounts recently published about just that - singing, talking loudly, etc. in conjunction with close (indoor, restricted air-flow) environments. In the originally documented cases in China (and the effect has seemed consistent in various countries since), families (or others) living together in close quarters seemed to account for a large majority of infected persons (as opposed to infection being more spread out geographically). This struck some as odd - given how contagious in air they thought (and it is turning out) the SARS-CoV-2 microbe is. (IMO), this pattern seems consistent with something that (can) become airborne on smaller droplets (recently 1-4 Micron droplet sizes were identified), but those are likely more easily diverted by ambient air-currents. So (perhaps). The larger droplets (themselves carrying more of the buggers per droplet) associated with closer-quarter talking, singing, sneezing, coughing of close-quarter (indoor, limited air-flow) proximity looks to be the larger risk. Imagine if SARS-CoV-2 could “aerosolize” as efficiently as Smallpox - we would all be infected.

For the sake of the world - and many far less fortunate than ourselves - let us hope that inoculations for (other) serious infectious diseases do not falter during this time, which could be additionally disastrous:

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/un-supports-routine-yet-vital-health-services-while-fighting-covid-19

4 Likes

The US hasn’t spoken about anything other than COVID-19. The drugs and inoculations for the known and treatable diseases are still being made? (I ask that question but forget the logistics). Even if we “we’ll worry about it after we get through this” 's a whole different can of worms sits open. Ugh… Let’s hope this settles back soon.

I don’t even know if they were even counting deaths to the COVID-19 in less developed countries?

3 Likes

(The Guardian, May 11, 2020):

Soaring drug prices could bar access to future coronavirus treatments -
Research shows drugs such as sofosbuvir, used to treat hepatitis C,
costs $5 to make but sells for $18,610 in the US

Existing drugs may help us get through the coronavirus pandemic while we wait for a vaccine, but high pricing by pharmaceutical companies will probably mean that, even if these drugs are proven to be effective, many sick people will still be prevented from getting treatment.

A study published this month in the Journal of Virus Eradication looked at nine of the drugs that have been identified as possible Covid-19 treatments and are in various stages of clinical trials globally. The team of researchers looked at how much each of the drugs is sold for in countries where data was available. Then they calculated what a generic version of these drugs might cost.

one of the study’s authors, Dr Jacob Levi, explained: “There has been a long history of big pharmaceutical companies charging unnecessary and unwarranted high prices for medications, even if they actually spent very little on research and development for that medication.” Levi added: “That’s been extremely common with infectious disease medications in the past, like hepatitis and HIV, and we can’t let it happen with medications for Covid-19. Otherwise, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths would occur and healthcare inequality amongst the poor will worsen.”

2 Likes

Here he talks about NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine) possibly having a positive effect on COVID-19 (because it reduces oxidative stress - the videos are very informative!).

The interesting thing is that NAC is readily available everywhere and it’s cheap and apparently has little to no adverse effects. It can even be purchased from Amazon - in fact there are lots of them.

In general it just sounds like a really good dietary supplement (at least these days) :wink:

EDIT: This is not a cure by any means - but it has the potential to lessen the symptoms - make the disease less severe.

2 Likes

Here is the most recent one - I am just watching it now.

EDIT: Very promising stuff! Apparently a Russian doctor thought the same thing as Dr. Seheult a bit before he did. Treatment with IV NAC/glutathione could be a very good treatment!

2 Likes

He references a good article about NAC (direct link here). I’ve used it for several years a couple of times a week before going out walking. It is somewhat helpful (in doses of a few hundred milliGrams) in conjunction with other measures (particularly in cases of any Liver dysfunction, where the bulk of the endogenous Glutathione production takes place). Exactly how (in relation to various mechanisms) is not well defined or understood. At most, around 10% can be orally absorbed and available to the Liver (best on empty stomach). It is not very soluble in Water, and has a kind of nasty stinging taste (due to the Sulfur atoms present in the molecule). Egg whites (just a little) makes an excellent “carrier” that seems to “grab onto” NAC, making it soluble as well as eliminating the “stinging” taste. It is (somewhat) helpful for inflammation - but it is not some “miracle cure”. Beware of “fad supplement/medicine” speculation.

NAC is the rate-limiting precursor to (primarily hepatic, in Liver) endogenous synthesis of Glutathione, along with the amino acids L-Glutamate and Glycine (which are plentifully supplied from digested foods in diet) in the endogenous bio-synthesis of Glutathione. It’s utility (as an “anti-oxidant” agent) depends upon whether one’s hepatic (Liver) Glutathione stores may (due to systemic inflammation, as well as increasing age) become low. (IMO), NAC is unlikely to act as a viable “cure” for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Note that Glutathione itself (although available), is essentially not (orally) absorbed much at all. Thus, administering NAC (by some route) is considered to be a more viable approach - and it is up to hepatic (Liver) chemistry to (hopefully) synthesize Glutathione. There appears to exist the ability in other organs and tissues than the Liver to synthesize Glutathione - but most reports seem to consider the Liver as the primary site of endogenous synthesis. (IMO), NAC seems to be a useful “adjunct” for inflammation.

Note that it is almost entirely eliminated via the Kidneys. One study (on people with Stage 5 CKD, or End Stage Renal Disease) showed a vastly slowed elimination half-life in plasma. A contraindication.

The whole business of associating “oxidative stress” and “inflammation” is a vague and “dicey” subject. There is some evidence that NAC interferes with “ROS-signaling” (itself thought to have a natural role in tissue-repair processes). The anti-oxidants studied that notably do not appear to have such (possibly undesirable) affects are the Anthocyanins (found in Elderberry, Bilberry, and Blueberries, as well as Red Cabbage and Red Bell Peppers). When leaves turn colors in the Fall, they are producing Anthocyanins.

Around (up to) 5% of Acetaminophen taken orally is transformed to a toxic molecule in Liver called N-acetylimidoquinone (NAPQI). NAC (either directly, and/or via hepatic Glutathione synthesis) can reduce the resultant (Liver) toxicity. When used for Acetaminophen poisoning, it is administered IV. It is also administered as a mist inhaled into lungs (for inflammatory conditions in lungs) in many countries (USA and Canada being the exceptions, where it is not deemed as being shown to be an effective therapy).

.

It seems like often some “fly in the ointment” presents (indicating that “too much” NAC may be harmful):

eating too many foods high in sulphur amino acids can have many negative health effects. They are linked to a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and non-alcohol fatty liver disease. And you’re at an even greater risk if you eat high levels of two particular types of sulphur amino acids, cysteine and methionine, both of which are found in high-protein foods. They are considered the most toxic amino acids, even though our body needs both of them.

Here is the direct link to the full paper that is referenced in the video embedded in replied-to post:

1 Like

(Science Magazine, May 14, 2020):

T cells found in COVID-19 patients ‘bode well’ for long-term immunity

Immune warriors known as T cells help us fight some viruses, but their importance for battling SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been unclear. Now, two new studies reveal that infected people harbor T cells that target the virus - and may help them recover. Both studies also found that some people never infected with SARS-CoV-2 have these cellular defenses, most likely because they were previously infected with other coronaviruses.

Before these studies, researchers didn’t know whether T cells played a role in eliminating SARS-CoV-2, or even whether they could provoke a dangerous immune system overreaction. “These papers are really helpful because they start to define the T cell component of the immune response,” Rasmussen says. But she and other scientists caution that the results do not mean that people who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from reinfection.

To spark production of antibodies, vaccines against the virus need to stimulate helper T cells, Crotty notes. “It is encouraging that we are seeing good helper T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 cases,” he says. The results have other significant implications for vaccine design, says molecular virologist Rachel Graham of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Most vaccines under development aim to elicit an immune response against spike, but both studies determined that T cells reacted to several viral proteins, suggesting that vaccines that sic the immune system on these proteins could be more effective. “Important to not just concentrate on one protein,” Graham says.

The media will as long as we click on their bait or turn the God Box to their channel.

2 Likes

My totally uneducated guess for mortality rate remains at 0.75% (vs. flu’s 0.1% - so still serious).

3 Likes

This is a pandemic. It will eventually pass though.
What should we do after? Social distancing? Social distancing’s a joke.
That’s not the type of society I want to live in. It destroys to many normal social activities. Instead, let’s make the machinery that makes PPE, see to it that some military personnel are trained to make it, and move on with life as normal?

And… I should have the choice to wear a respirator instead of a disposable mask and not be shunned. If those who had respirators wore them, along with having them available for hospitals, this would be far less an issue. A fumigation box at home for the respirator and a disinfectant cartridge to fog the box… Simple, problem solved.

The take away from this disease is a simple one. Prepare as best you can for the next. Don’t let this ruin our lives as a society.

We’re going to live. Definitely longer than the disease.

Is this the new norm? I don’t want to live like this personally.

2 Likes