Author Topic: Will we all end up getting covid?  (Read 3312 times)

ian

  • camera nazi
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #50 on: 01 January, 2022, 09:05:21 pm »
I read about the Bat immune system somewhere.  Apparently their metabolism is so fast, that viruses don’t get a chance to cause disease.   The viruses are moving in slow motion whilst getting battered by the Bat armoury .

This is one of those things that is sort of true without being entirely true. Bats are unusual, in part because they have a damped immune response, and it's an immune response that causes many of the worst symptoms of any viral infection. They have modifications to several major components of their immune recognition system which means they can mount a standard interferon defence without initiation of a cytokine cascade (it's this that causes the serious inflammation-related problems). This does mean they make for a good potential viral reservoir.

That said, I've seen it quoted that most humans have several ongoing viral infections at any moment, and those are the ones we know about. Viruses are the most profligate and successful 'organisms' on the planet. The majority of these infections you don't notice, the others have minor symptoms. In the most part, we've reached an evolutionary balance with the vast number of microbes that live on and in us. A minute number of organisms are pathogenic, this is a testament to co-evolution. Any organism is a reservoir slopping over with viruses. That includes me and you.

Fact is, SARS-CoV-2 is a very boring virus. It does nothing special. Its only grab at stardom was stumbling into a human population and catching a break that enabled it to spread. Even that wasn't special, the propensity for coronaviruses to do this is well known (it is SARS-CoV-2). The paradox is that it's not even that bad, to the vast majority of people, it's a minor infection aligned with current coronaviruses. But, and I keep saying this, it's a numbers game – with a massive number of infections, even a minute number of significant infections is a lot of people. Which is what we have been watching. We've all be inculcated on viruses as being some kind of hyper-ebola and zombie plagues. Reality is more often slow and deadly and that numbers game, and perhaps this is why we're being so terrible at managing it. We're trying to apply blockbuster narratives to real life and coming up disappointed. Equally, I'm not sure the fatalistic messaging that OMG OMICRON IS GOING TO GET YOU! is doomed to anything other than failure because it's not reflective of most people experience of having Covid. We have created a dissonance.

As we can now do unprecedented levels of genomic sequencing (and I'm starting to question the time and money we are now dedicating to this) we're created a somewhat artifactual series of variants like bad guys in a movie, and perhaps to satisfy the modern need for a constantly developing narrative. Again SARS-CoV-2 isn't doing anything new, having stumbled into being able to spread in a mostly-immune naive human population, it did just that, spread as fast as our creaky underfunded public health systems could let it.

Then we were lucky enough for unprecedented vaccine success (and I don't mean to denigrate the efforts of those involved, but I'm pretty sure that no one would have speculated we'd have debuted not one but several vaccines with >75% efficiency in little over a year). Combined with immunity through exposure, this created a wall of immunity in many populations. In these populations, there's a huge selection pressure for any virus that continue to reproduce. So, ipso facto, any variant spreading in an immune population is evading that immunity. You don't need to know anything about that virus genome, this is basic biology 101. You don't need to spend trillions of dollars on research, this is evolutionary theory at its most basic. I've been shocked that so many clinical scientists I've read really struggle to understand (or at least articulate) evolution as the fundamental driving force. To be clear, every virus is doing the same as SARS-CoV-2, constantly mutating and the results being selected for fitness.

Humans already have several endemic coronaviruses, it's quite possible and likely, like many human pathogens, they came over in similar zoonotic spillovers. That they persist tells us that we don't form full and persistent sterilizing immunity (which is rare) but we reach a similar co-evolutionary balance with SARS-CoV-2. This may take several years of vaccination to protect the more vulnerable. Endemicity might not be the worst outcome, it ensures that we maintain some immunity (and a higher probability of having some immunity against future spillovers or outbreaks of Covid from whatever reservoir we drive it into). It also explains the nonsensicality of the zero-covid argument. We were never going to eliminate or eradicate once it had started to spread.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #51 on: 01 January, 2022, 10:17:55 pm »
Interesting and educational post as always ian (and one of the joys of yACF).
Some points I'd like further clarification on if you don't mind and, for disclosure, I'm an industrial chemist and I can interpret data, see trends and understand (basic) bio-chem. Perhaps more relevantly, one of my best friends is a geneticist and I owe most of my knowledge of PCR and virus evolution to him (the rest I learned via Google  ;)). We've had lots of discussions about Covid. Several* of these discussions have involved alcohol.

"Fact is, SARS-CoV-2 is a very boring virus. It does nothing special."
Yes, but isn't it different enough to infect (and kill) a significant number of a naive population as it would seem to have done ?

"Equally, I'm not sure the fatalistic messaging that OMG OMICRON IS GOING TO GET YOU! is doomed to anything other than failure because it's not reflective of most people experience of having Covid. We have created a dissonance."
Aren't most if not all of us going to get Covid at some point and the "fatalistic" bit is slightly overdone ? I'm expecting to be infected by Omicrom at some point despite my best intentions. In some ways I'd regard it as a benefit because I assume/hope it would give me a "top up" to my 2xAZ, 1xflu and 1xModerna. Just so long as I don't get very ill and need a hospital bed or die or infect anyone else.

"As we can now do unprecedented levels of genomic sequencing (and I'm starting to question the time and money we are now dedicating to this)"
It's the last bit of this quotation that I wonder about. Surely we need to know what variants are out there so that we can see what's happening in the population and we can tailor treatments accordingly ? I'd be interested to know if, by observing the direction of mutations we can predict where the virus might be heading. I suspect not because, as I understand it, mutation is random and sometimes it works for the virus, most times not.

"Then we were lucky enough for unprecedented vaccine success (and I don't mean to denigrate the efforts of those involved, but I'm pretty sure that no one would have speculated we'd have debuted not one but several vaccines with >75% efficiency in little over a year)."

My biggest question in your post. Isn't it the case that if this virus had appeared 10, perhaps even 5 years ago, we wouldn't have had the technology to develop vaccines so quickly ? I'm particularly thinking of the mRNA vaccines but even the zoonotic types against Covid 19 ? Again isn't this where our (recently acquired) ability to genetically sequence the initial virus has helped the development of the vaccines and will help modification of future mRNA vaccines ? I'm not sure (from my position of not quite complete ignorance) where AZ go from here unless they can find a different virus to avoid our immune systems and deliver the vaccine.










*A definition of "several" that really means "most".

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #52 on: 01 January, 2022, 11:21:22 pm »
Just out of curiosity,  do you wrest ffp3 masks with those plastic valves to allow you to expel your breath more efficiently? Aren't they a little counterproductive in that they let your moist breath out without a filtering effect going on? Kind of like protecting yourself but not others?

It always annoyed me to see people swanning around supermarkets in 2020 wearing those ffp3 masks with the valves. Especially when they leaned over people's head to reach something from a shelf rather than waiting.

The removal of the face covering on trains a few months ago always seemed a bit daft.  Countries in SE Asia have a culture of wearing them in crowds even before this pandemic yet we just have to ditch them in the middle of a pandemic just as soon as infections drop a bit then delay reintroduction when a variant of concern appears. I never stopped and to hell with the idiots looking at me as if I'm mad for still wearing them. One day people I the UK will stop being selfish and our government will stop pandering to various self interests but actually act on best scientific evidence,  even make over cautious and preemptive decisions. Hit hard and early to recover quicker with fewer infections and deaths.

I'm negative about our nation and its decision making ability.  I'm not just talking about government but the general public who can't see that we cannot be selfish with our own actions around this virus.  Party now and potentially die later seems a daft idea to me.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #53 on: 01 January, 2022, 11:50:59 pm »
I'm negative about our nation and its decision making ability.  I'm not just talking about government but the general public who can't see that we cannot be selfish with our own actions around this virus.  Party now and potentially die later seems a daft idea to me.

These are the aspects of all this that have the most negative impact on my mental health.

I can put up with the isolation and the inconveniences, but seeing key workers and children thrown under the bus, seeing the same mistakes made time after time, seeing people mourn their loved ones, seeing the pandemic being exploited for mega profits for some whilst others queue at food banks, seeing the media fuel false binaries and freedom tropes, and seeing such rampant individualism... that's crushing me.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #54 on: 02 January, 2022, 12:04:57 am »
I've (deliberately) steered clear of "vented" masks for the reasons that you've stated TPMB12.
I'm using this type:- https://www.medisave.co.uk/3m-aura-disposable-ffp3-healthcare-respirator-iir-1863.html

They were recommended by my geneticist friend (see above); that's what he used at work (NHS). The FFP3 masks that I infrequently have to use in my job are more "Darth Vader" (because isocyanates) than that type. I wouldn't want to wear a "work" mask at my local Sainsbury's*, not because it wouldn't be effective but because of the reaction it might provoke.
FWIW, in my local (Urmston) Sainsbury's*, mask wearing is pleasantly high and people do seem to be doing part of the "social distancing" bit again. A couple of miles away (and, it has to be said, about 10 years back in time) mask wearing in Stretford Mall is disappointingly low.

Anecdotally, after 2021's Manchester-Blackpool FNRttC, friend HelenB and I were travelling back on the train together, both of us wearing masks. Only people also wearing masks (the minority unfortunately) came and sat near us. Don't know why but several different couples/groups got on and off and mask wearing was the constant. Non mask wearers walked past where we were and they sat elsewhere.
Result  :thumbsup:

"One day people in the UK will stop being selfish and our government will stop pandering to various self interests but actually act on best scientific evidence,  even make over cautious and pre-emptive decisions. Hit hard and early to recover quicker with fewer infections and deaths."

I hope I live long enough to see this. I don't think I will.

*Other houses of toothy comestibles are available.
I sometimes visit Waitrose and Aldi but that's, perhaps, for another thread. A thread that I shan't start.





Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #56 on: 02 January, 2022, 12:19:30 am »
I knobbled the bypass valves on barakta's mask as soon as she got it.  Mine doesn't have them.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #57 on: 02 January, 2022, 12:32:14 am »
Do you wear that type of mask for the lip reading potential (as well as other benefits) Kim ?


Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #58 on: 02 January, 2022, 12:48:32 am »
Do you wear that type of mask for the lip reading potential (as well as other benefits) Kim ?

That was the idea when I bought it, but you can't really lip-read through it, even before it fills with condensation.  In practice lip-reading me is less of a problem than it is with other people because barakta's familiar with my voice, and I'll repeat / re-phrase / cue my speech / switch to BSL as necessary.

While the seal's more finicky than a proper silicone one, it does seal when you get it to sit right, which means no steamed-up glasses and presumably half-decent filtration.

The hospital use these for lip-readability: https://www.theclearmask.com/  I'm deeply sceptical about their efficacy from a SARS-Cov-2 perspective.  The BSL interpreters have mostly been using visors, which are even worse.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #59 on: 02 January, 2022, 11:13:43 am »
Do you wear that type of mask for the lip reading potential (as well as other benefits) Kim ?

That was the idea when I bought it, but you can't really lip-read through it, even before it fills with condensation.  In practice lip-reading me is less of a problem than it is with other people because barakta's familiar with my voice, and I'll repeat / re-phrase / cue my speech / switch to BSL as necessary.

While the seal's more finicky than a proper silicone one, it does seal when you get it to sit right, which means no steamed-up glasses and presumably half-decent filtration.

The hospital use these for lip-readability: https://www.theclearmask.com/  I'm deeply sceptical about their efficacy from a SARS-Cov-2 perspective.  The BSL interpreters have mostly been using visors, which are even worse.
The question you need to ask is why you are wearing a mask?
  • To prevent me from getting Covid in a high viral load atmosphere
  • To prevent me from getting Covid in a low viral load atmosphere
  • To prevent me from passing on Covid when I am actually positive
  • To be socially sensible and/or prevent /reduce transmission when I have asymptomatic disease

For the first you need a FFP3 mask which has been fit tested.  This is done with test inhalation of a noxious agent which the mask stops.  Not all FFP3 masks fit all people.
For the second almost anything which disrupts laminar flow and extensive travel of the droplets will be effective.  So the infected wearing anything in front of the face will cause droplets to drop more rapidly in turbulent flow and me wearing a mask of any sort will again reduce the amount of virus containing water droplets which make their way around the mask and into my nasopharynx.  Similarly for the third, any manner of mask will reduce droplet expulsion. Similarly for 4.

I will wear a FFP3 mask which I know fits and so will my wife when travelling on a plane and in the airport at each end.  I would also wear one on the underground or in a busy pub.

The rest of the time I wear an ordinary mask or a double folded buff as it will do exactly what is appropriate in the circumstances.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #60 on: 02 January, 2022, 11:30:41 am »
Shades of "Dont' Look Up".  Thousands of people are dying around the world every day because of CV19 and here we are arguing about the plural form of a word.  Homo sapiens?  I do wonder about that.

You may have just hoisted yourself on your own petard with wondering about homo sapiens.  What you appear to be suggesting is that nothing should be discussed or referred to except Covid; have I got that right?  I'm already doing everything I can to avoid catching the virus or passing it on.  Does everything else have to stop?

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #61 on: 02 January, 2022, 05:08:05 pm »
The question you need to ask is why you are wearing a mask?
  • To prevent me from getting Covid in a high viral load atmosphere
  • To prevent me from getting Covid in a low viral load atmosphere
  • To prevent me from passing on Covid when I am actually positive
  • To be socially sensible and/or prevent /reduce transmission when I have asymptomatic disease

For the first you need a FFP3 mask which has been fit tested.  This is done with test inhalation of a noxious agent which the mask stops.  Not all FFP3 masks fit all people.
For the second almost anything which disrupts laminar flow and extensive travel of the droplets will be effective.  So the infected wearing anything in front of the face will cause droplets to drop more rapidly in turbulent flow and me wearing a mask of any sort will again reduce the amount of virus containing water droplets which make their way around the mask and into my nasopharynx.  Similarly for the third, any manner of mask will reduce droplet expulsion. Similarly for 4.

Hang on, I thought it was well established (by everyone except the government) that SARS-Cov-2 is spread by aerosols, not just droplets.  We should all be using FFP3 masks.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #62 on: 02 January, 2022, 05:47:54 pm »
Droplets= aerosol. The virus is expelled in a shower of aerosolised droplets which travel in a plume. The virus particles themselves are relatively poor at surviving on their own in a dry atmosphere or on a surface.
Hence why I do not bother with anything more than social hand care anymore.

ian

  • camera nazi
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #63 on: 02 January, 2022, 06:57:23 pm »
Interesting and educational post as always ian (and one of the joys of yACF).
Some points I'd like further clarification on if you don't mind and, for disclosure, I'm an industrial chemist and I can interpret data, see trends and understand (basic) bio-chem. Perhaps more relevantly, one of my best friends is a geneticist and I owe most of my knowledge of PCR and virus evolution to him (the rest I learned via Google  ;)). We've had lots of discussions about Covid. Several* of these discussions have involved alcohol.

"Fact is, SARS-CoV-2 is a very boring virus. It does nothing special."
Yes, but isn't it different enough to infect (and kill) a significant number of a naive population as it would seem to have done ?

That's the thing, we were mostly immunologically naive (possible there's some residual immunity derived from exposure to other coronaviruses, which may explain why some people got it worse than others), so there was little to stop it. Which is likely the standard scenario in a zoonotic spillover. It's basic evolution, throw any organism into a suitable new environment without competition or predation and it'll quickly fill it.

"Equally, I'm not sure the fatalistic messaging that OMG OMICRON IS GOING TO GET YOU! is doomed to anything other than failure because it's not reflective of most people experience of having Covid. We have created a dissonance."
Aren't most if not all of us going to get Covid at some point and the "fatalistic" bit is slightly overdone ? I'm expecting to be infected by Omicrom at some point despite my best intentions. In some ways I'd regard it as a benefit because I assume/hope it would give me a "top up" to my 2xAZ, 1xflu and 1xModerna. Just so long as I don't get very ill and need a hospital bed or die or infect anyone else.

I think there's been some deliberation in the campaigns to drive the message that's it is you – the individual – who will suffer. That makes some sense, people are selfish, so public health messaging based around people's innate selfishness isn't a bad bet. Now we're in a phase of the pandemic where it's clear that to most people, covid is a minor infection, and that's people's experience, there's a dissonance between what they're being told and what they are seeing. Of course, if you've been vaccinated – even without the booster – your odds of becoming seriously ill with covid are tiny. There's no easy answer to this, of course, other than I think the message is no longer resonant.

"As we can now do unprecedented levels of genomic sequencing (and I'm starting to question the time and money we are now dedicating to this)"
It's the last bit of this quotation that I wonder about. Surely we need to know what variants are out there so that we can see what's happening in the population and we can tailor treatments accordingly ? I'd be interested to know if, by observing the direction of mutations we can predict where the virus might be heading. I suspect not because, as I understand it, mutation is random and sometimes it works for the virus, most times not.

I'm not down on sequencing per se, this is a fantastic advance and – for a start – massively accelerated vaccine development. It's the volume and resources involved in what, in some respects, has become little more than sophisticated stamp collecting. People wiser than me have commented that they could achieve effective genomic surveillance and phylogeny with far fewer sequences. It's also created an obsession with variants. It doesn't really matter what the genomic sequence of a virus is – or how we label any particular collection of mutations – it is the functional consequence of what is a predictably random process. We threw up a wall of immunity and created a huge selection pressure of any variant that isn't affected by that immunity. Again, this is expected – facing massive levels of vaccination and immunity through exposure, either there would be no variant of the virus that could continue to survive (in which case we'd see it disappear) or there are variants that can survive and suddenly have the advantage and can spread fast (which is what happened with omicron).

It's difficult to predict any evolution items since a beneficial mutation is driven by fitness. It has to produce something that benefits the organism in its current environment. Omicron has an advantage because it can spread in individuals with some immunity whereas other variants can't, but omicron might struggle in other environments. Evolution isn't a process of improvement, SARS-CoV-2 isn't getting better. Evolution is a process of survival bias.

"Then we were lucky enough for unprecedented vaccine success (and I don't mean to denigrate the efforts of those involved, but I'm pretty sure that no one would have speculated we'd have debuted not one but several vaccines with >75% efficiency in little over a year)."

My biggest question in your post. Isn't it the case that if this virus had appeared 10, perhaps even 5 years ago, we wouldn't have had the technology to develop vaccines so quickly ? I'm particularly thinking of the mRNA vaccines but even the zoonotic types against Covid 19 ? Again isn't this where our (recently acquired) ability to genetically sequence the initial virus has helped the development of the vaccines and will help modification of future mRNA vaccines ? I'm not sure (from my position of not quite complete ignorance) where AZ go from here unless they can find a different virus to avoid our immune systems and deliver the vaccine.

*A definition of "several" that really means "most".

Sequencing is a lot faster and cheaper, and a ~30 kilobase RNA genome is a straightforward and quick task with modern platforms, so the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced almost immediately by the Chinese. That said, the first full viral sequence was completed in 1976 (admittedly a Herculean task for a virus about a sixth the size of SARS-CoV-2). The 48 kilobase Lamba phage was sequenced in 1981 (but took three years). A significant number of human viruses were fully sequenced in the early to mid 2010s. Sequencing SARS-CoV-2 wouldn't have proved an insurmountable challenge a few years back, though it is one of the largest RNA viruses. Having quick and fast sequencing technology made everything better, of course.

Sequencing works using two main methods – short reads (usually under 500 bases), in which case you chop up DNA into lots of small overlapping sections and sequence those and the reassemble a final larger contiguous sequence and long reads which can process long segments (up to 30 kilobases, though it can be pushed a lot higher) – so fewer overlaps are necessary for a long contiguous sequence or an entire genome. From the mid-2000s, massive parallelization has vastly accelerated sequencing, much of this being technological fallout from the Human Genome Project.

Certainly the ability to go from sequence to vaccine development in literally a few days was massive. You could literally download the sequence in the morning and be working on a vaccine in the afternoon. That was huge (and fortuitous), along with the fact that both nucleic acid-based and viral-vector vaccine development platforms were already established. What, of course, was more fortuitous was that they worked with high efficiency. It's often overlooked, but it's wasn't just a success of developing a vaccine, but the massive challenge of manufacturing and distributing that vaccine.

Whether the success of these platforms is replicated for other diseases is an interesting question that a lot of people are asking (bear in mind that we have spent decades trying and failing to find a vaccine for HIV). I don't think anyone really expected the mRNA vaccines to be so effective (though the principle was sound), in many ways it is an amazingly simple idea of simply jabbing someone with mRNA and having their muscle tissue produce enough protein from that mRNA to generate a good immune response. The viral-vectored platforms were a known safer bet since they were developed essentially as a trojan horse. Virally vectored vaccines, of course, generate an immune response to the delivery vehicle (for AZ, a modified chimp adenovirus), so there are diminishing returns, but the delivery virus can be modified to evade some of this, plus there are other viral delivery platforms).

The downside of both of these is that they are very focused on the single spike protein – other more old-school methods may generate a broader response that makes it more difficult for immune-evading variants to be developed. There's plenty of work ongoing to create vaccines using these technologies that generate multiple epitopes (variants of the spike protein or other components of the SARS-CoV-2 virus). These would, in theory, dramatically limit the probability of immune-evading variants, since they'd require a series of mutations that are improbably and if they did simultaneously occur, they'd deplete the overall fitness of the virus so much that it would likely not have much of a future.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #64 on: 02 January, 2022, 07:52:44 pm »
Thanks for taking the time to reply ian; I appreciate your explanations.
Beer on me if I'm ever near the asbestos palace provided I don't get eaten by the bears.

ETA: typo corrected: original post was "eaten by beers". Should have been "eaten by bears". The asbestos palace bears.




Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #65 on: 02 January, 2022, 08:07:19 pm »
Droplets= aerosol.

I was under the impression that there's an important distinction between droplets, which settle to the ground under gravity, and aerosols, which can hang around in the air indefinitely (though the virus particles themselves may be neutralised after a while by drying out, UV light or whatever).  And that it's a bit more complicated than particle size alone.

There was much debate as to whether SARS-Cov-2 could spread via aerosols, but the scientific consensus seems to have come down on "yes, it can", hence the importance of ventilation/filtration and FFP3 masks, which authorities in certain countries seem resistant to acting on for political reasons.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #66 on: 02 January, 2022, 08:56:15 pm »

This from the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers in their Ventilation resource (I'm rockin' the bedtime reading tonight!)
https://go.cibse.org/l/698403/2021-07-16/58mxjt/698403/1626442809vU1W2onF/COVID_19___Ventilation_v5.pdf


Quote
Evidence is mounting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, can be spread by very small particles – called aerosols – which are released by an infected person when they cough, sneeze, talk and breathe, alongside larger droplets that are released simultaneously (Tang, et al., 2020) (Wilson, et al., 2020).

Larger droplets are acted upon by gravity, and fall after a period of time; the two-metre social distancing measure was developed to ensure contact with these larger droplets is reduced.

However, fine aerosols (some of which may contain viral particles) can remain airborne for several hours. Although it is difficult to definitively prove the airborne aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the same mechanism of transmission has been identified in similar viruses (for example, SARS-CoV-1). There is emerging evidence that shows high rates of infection in poorly ventilated rooms, which suggests that this is a potential transmission route. Measures to reduce the risk of inhaling these small particles, which may cause infection, are therefore recommended.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #67 on: 03 January, 2022, 06:14:32 pm »
Droplets= aerosol.

I was under the impression that there's an important distinction between droplets, which settle to the ground under gravity, and aerosols, which can hang around in the air indefinitely (though the virus particles themselves may be neutralised after a while by drying out, UV light or whatever).  And that it's a bit more complicated than particle size alone.

There was much debate as to whether SARS-Cov-2 could spread via aerosols, but the scientific consensus seems to have come down on "yes, it can", hence the importance of ventilation/filtration and FFP3 masks, which authorities in certain countries seem resistant to acting on for political reasons.

It is all a question of size but it is unlikely that pure naked virus particles survive for long is my understanding.  I am unhappy to be proved wrong

ian

  • camera nazi
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #68 on: 04 January, 2022, 12:09:51 pm »
Virus is always going to be expelled in some kind of aqueous suspension (which will be a mix of droplets and aerosols). Naked virus particles only exist when those dry on a surface (even then, they won't be floating around). My current understanding is that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't survive long in this format – lots of early studies thought this was the case, but I think they were just measuring residual RNA rather than infectious virus particles. Consensus now is that spread depends on inhaling infectious aerosols and droplets. Covid, relatively speaking, isn't that infectious so it still requires sending time in an infectious environment rather than casual exposure as you pass someone in a corridor.

Personally, considering we can't persuade many people to wear a bit of cloth over their nose and mouth, I think there's little point in trying to encourage FFP3 masks outside of clinical or high-risk contexts (where it should be the norm anyway by now).
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #69 on: 04 January, 2022, 12:16:06 pm »
Personally, considering we can't persuade many people to wear a bit of cloth over their nose and mouth, I think there's little point in trying to encourage FFP3 masks outside of clinical or high-risk contexts (where it should be the norm anyway by now).

Might work like 20mph speed limits though, with encouraging FFP3 resulting in higher rate of bit-of-cloth wearing overall.

In non-covid clinical contexts the standard is a Mk 1 surgical mask.  They'll usually make you remove your FFP3 in order to put one of theirs on.

ian

  • camera nazi
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #70 on: 04 January, 2022, 12:56:07 pm »
I'm less convinced and think should stick to encouraging a bit of cloth, which will be more convenient and comfortable and in most scenarios just as effective. You need exposure to a significant amount of virus to catch covid, so it's mostly an infection from spending prolonged time in the same place as the potentially infectious (such as classrooms, public transport etc.).
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #71 on: 04 January, 2022, 01:03:24 pm »
None of it matters; it's a culture war issue now.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #72 on: 07 January, 2022, 10:32:05 pm »
Last year there were reports that the 2m rule working because of droplets falling due to gravity was probably wrong because droplets actually broke up into smaller aerosol particles which didn't fall out.  Both carried the virus particles. It was however a matter of numbers of virus particles in that there was likely to be a threshold of particles to get covid. I have no idea how much of the early thinking is still considered to be true.

Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #73 on: 08 January, 2022, 08:54:45 am »
My personal view is that mask wearing can have a psychological role in reminding people that Covid roams amongst us, and maybe encourages more generally aware behaviour.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Will we all end up getting covid?
« Reply #74 on: 08 January, 2022, 09:07:12 am »
Agreed, I think the visual reminder is important.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.