Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

Healthier people.

Cancer, largely not preventable, is their leading cause by a factor of 2. Over heart disease.

Heart disease, largely preventable, is our number 1. About 16% more than cancer.

Have they done different therapeutics? Which vaccine are they using?

They started with AstraZeneca but approved Pfizer a few months back. If anything that should have worked against them in keeping cases low since AstraZeneca isn't super effective.

Their overall health and any therapeutics would explain the massive discrepancy in severe outcomes, but it doesn't explain the massive gap in overall case numbers. This is especially true given their population density compared to ours.
 
Unfortunately the mask has become a symbol. It's efficacy in real-world comparisons is not important. Symbols are not held to an efficacious standard.
The mask is a filly to calm the masses nothing more. Here is the “mask” you need with the associated support apparatus to keep is properly located on your face to protect you against an airborn 0.1um particle.

36A7C15B-56CE-4D01-AF18-6ECFE277DE0B.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey and McDad
Obesity rates would explain a difference in severe infections. I'm not sure it explains such a drastic difference in total cases.
20% of South Korea's population is tested as of july 2021. That likely has some bearing on the difference.

The US has conducted over 500 M tests.
 
Unfortunately the mask has become a symbol. It's efficacy in real-world comparisons is not important. Symbols are not held to an efficacious standard.

Demoing my bathroom.

One night I wore a common blue surgical looking mask. I pulled gunk from my nose for the entire next day.

Next night, I bought a N95 and wore it. No gunk the next day.

The common mask is useless.
 
Total cases require a test. Someone with very mild symptoms may never be tested.

I looked for differences in how SK conducts its PCR compared to America but couldn't find any information. I didn't check on the number of South Koreans tested...I'll check it now.

They were doing much better at getting tests done early in the pandemic, but I also can't find any recent numbers.
 
I'm not going to bother reposting the numerous actual medical studies from the past decades demonstrating that masks do not help with real-world viral transmission. "Ejecta," aerosol studies, memes about pee, etc are irrelevant. It's also now quite simple to compare states, schools, and even countries with differing mask policies to see that there has been no appreciable improvement. In many areas, it actually appears that mask usage was followed by an increase in cases.
Yeah, that was a classic one.
 
They were doing much better at getting tests done early in the pandemic, but I also can't find any recent numbers.
I found it.

No where close to comparable. It isn't an end-all-be-all to the discussion. But I find the difference compelling.
 
Demoing my bathroom.

One night I wore a common blue surgical looking mask. I pulled gunk from my nose for the entire next day.

Next night, I bought a N95 and wore it. No gunk the next day.

The common mask is useless.

It isn't simply the mask. It is the user.

If people touched condoms as often as they touched their masks, there would be an epidemic of STDs and pregnancies.
 
I found it.

No where close to comparable. It isn't an end-all-be-all to the discussion. But I find the difference compelling.

I just found it, too.

It would certainly have to be a factor. But even their percent positive is so much lower than ours. Of course it's hard to weed out false positives in either country.
 
My understanding of ICU space available is it is elastic. It can be controlled somewhat by delaying other procedures scheduled. Elective surgery, non urgent surgery can be deferred until ICU space is normalized. If this is the case, then reports disclosing the percentage of space available is not as dire as we think.
My resource for this understanding is the two rural hospitals McMom covers.

Maybe @NurseGoodVol , @kiddiedoc can weigh in as well.
It is elastic. The control lies with whoever is doing bed control. We can be at 90% with 5 step downs we can’t send to other units because they are full. They all have transfer orders but still counted in our census. So we are really at 60% icu pts and 30% step down. They’ll report 90%. It can be played with.
 
I just found it, too.

It would certainly have to be a factor. But even their percent positive is so much lower than ours. Of course it's hard to weed out false positives in either country.
agreed. That's why I looked for their approach (number of cycles) to the pcr test.

Early on, McMom and others who are shared between hospitals would get differing results between tests conducted same day, and tests conducted subsequent days. I don't know if the testing was ever standardized or if false positives were ever reduced to satisfactory levels.
 
It is elastic. The control lies with whoever is doing bed control. We can be at 90% with 5 step downs we can’t send to other units because they are full. They all have transfer orders but still counted in our census. So we are really at 60% icu pts and 30% step down. They’ll report 90%. It can be played with.
That must be a fairly common tactic. Sounds exactly like the facilities she is in.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
The fact that it normalized in the following days tells me that it was a correction of some sort and there’s nothing sinister going on.
It might be a tad early to call it but even TX appears to have peaked and is turning back downward. And this local maximum wasn’t the doom and gloom I’ve had to listen too on the local idiot news either.
 
Texas Police Department WARNS PUBLIC after COVID-positive Migrants Released by Border Patrol Into Town

Migrants told police they 'were released because they were sick with COVID-19,' police said

A Texas border town police department is warning citizens of the potential danger posed by illegal immigrants infected with COVID-19 being released by Border Patrol agents and housed in local hotels.

The La Joya, Texas, Police Department issued a public health announcement on Facebook this week and explained that concerned citizens had witnessed a family group coughing and sneezing at a local Whataburger. Police said they were told by the group they had been released by Border Patrol into a local hotel.

"The Officer approached the family and was told by them that they had been apprehended by Border Patrol days prior and were released because they were sick with COVID-19," the Facebook post read, adding that they determined the family was being housed at a local hotel by a charity group.

"Officers made contact with Hotel management who explained that Catholic Charities of The Rio Grande Valley had booked all the rooms in the hotel to house undocumented immigrants that were detained By Border Patrol," the post stated.

The post says the majority of the migrants held were not wearing masks and that border authorities are releasing migrants with coronavirus symptoms to local charities who were not notifying local police that sick people were being housed in the hotels.

Texas police department warns public after COVID-positive migrants released by Border Patrol into town
 
Jesus.

Masks are effective by creating a barrier to wider spread dissemination of the virus - literally no one is saying that they prevent the transmission of the virus in totality but as someone who I assume prescribes to evidence based science, how can you read this article and say "masks don't help?"

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% of particles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).

Discussion and Recommendations Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (10–16); non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
While I'm certain that you're the expert in communicable illnesses here, every doctor the country would tell you the same damn thing until April 2020, and there was no groundbreaking research in those three weeks.

It's a total joke and laughable that anyone with experience handling viruses would suggest that a stylish hanky or a paper mask would be useful.

Lap it up, triple mask, whatever you want to do. You're still wrong.
 
While I'm certain that you're the expert in communicable illnesses here, every doctor the country would tell you the same damn thing until April 2020, and there was no groundbreaking research in those three weeks.

It's a total joke and laughable that anyone with experience handling viruses would suggest that a stylish hanky or a paper mask would be useful.

Lap it up, triple mask, whatever you want to do. You're still wrong.

You've got it all wrong, I'm simply pointing out what the conclusions of what multiple studies have found. And no where have I stated of implied that masks prevent the disease. However, one doesn't need to be a communicable disease expert or M.D. to understand the meanings of words like: "non-medical masks have been shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission"

Just to be clear, all of these peer reviewed studies are wrong their conclusions? Source control is bullsh*t and masks don't cut down the distance of mucous ejections?

another peer reviewed source of source control.....

Universal use of face masks for success against COVID-19: evidence and implications for prevention policies

Controlling a respiratory infection at source by a face mask is a well-established strategy. For example, symptomatic patients with cough or sneezing are generally advised to put on a face mask, and this applies equally to patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (airborne transmission) and influenza (predominantly droplet-transmitted). With the large number of asymptomatic patients unware of their own infection [1, 2], the comparable viral load in their upper respiratory tract [3], droplet and aerosol dispersion even during talking and breathing [6], and prolonged viral viability outside our body [7], we strongly advocate universal use of face mask as a means of source control in public places during the COVID-19 pandemic. Extreme forms of social distancing is not sustainable, and complete lockdown of cities or even whole countries is extremely devastating to the economy. Universal masking in public complements social distancing and hand hygiene in containing or slowing down the otherwise exponential growth of the pandemic. Universal masking protects against cross-transmission through unavoidable person-to-person contact during the lockdown and reduces the risk for resurgence during relaxation of social distancing measures on reopening.
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Back
Top