|
I doubt anyone has data yet wrt eyes as a vector for the new wave of highly infectious spike protein variants. They are too new and it takes too long for studies to be done/papers to be published. But hell I'm a scientist and even I think that asking for data for everything is unrealistic. Sometimes you take reasonable precautions because they don't cost very much and they help prevent potentially catastrophic outcomes.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah the CDC never recommends other‐than‐best practices. it's wild how people swing between "who and cdc are massive liars" and "we can trust who and cdc perfectly" Zugzwang posted:I doubt anyone has data yet wrt eyes as a vector for the new wave of highly infectious spike protein variants. They are too new and it takes too long for studies to be done/papers to be published. the meta study i mentioned actually has data on it. it studied eye pro in combination with other types of protection 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
quote:Dr. Anthony Fauci suggested Wednesday that Americans should consider wearing goggles or a face shield in order to prevent spreading or catching COVID-19. That’s from July.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
This one might already be in the meta‐analysis, but anyway:Stickman posted:There's a paper with trained community health workers doing contact tracing in India where 12 of 62 workers were infected with SARS-CoV-2 over a two week period despite masks, gloves, shoe covers, and distancing used during home visits. After introducing face shields, no more community health workers were infected during the subsequent five weeks. It's possible that their surgical masks were inadequate for personal protection and the mask + face shield was sufficient, but the ocular route is also plausible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:it's wild how people swing between "who and cdc are massive liars" and "we can trust who and cdc perfectly"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
withak posted:Yes everyone knows it is technically possible, but OP was asking whether anyone was recommending filter masks and goggles (I.e. is catching it through your eyes in normal situations was likely enough to matter), which WHO, CDC, etc are not. I suppose internet randos are free to make their own recommendations though. pidan posted:Yeah, for healthcare workers with patient contact: If you thought a cloth mask and casual distancing in a mixed masked/unmasked environment is suitable risk management for you, fine. If you still think it's a good idea given the increased ACE2 binding of the new variants combined with the increased viral load, fine. That's getting stupid, but fine you be you. Do you think there is a reason why it's recommended if there is a chance of broadcast microdroplets, like an unmasked sneeze, cough or yell?  How about someone talking without a mask?   (slo mo guys video and interview with Dr. Fauchi is pretty neat) Those fast moving droplets are capable of moving at > 1m/s and can end up in your eyes. Will the quantity be sufficient for infection? Possible. Can that be avoided with a face shield or glasses? Yes. Face shields or wrap around style rated glasses have been mandatory and for nurses and doctors, and recommended for caregivers or anyone at high risk for good reason (in my healthcare region). Don't loving advocate against a simple precaution like glasses; if someone is looking to reduce risk in mixed masked/unmasked public environments, a n95 filter with decent fit and close fitting glasses is absolutely a reasonable idea. What the gently caress is wrong you dipshits? Blitter fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
I'm not advocating against using face shields, feel free to wear one if you like. The question was if the CDC recommends face shields for the general public, which it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
I don’t think anyone said not to wear goggles, just that no one but internet poster virologists are recommending them for widespread use. I say if you feel safer wearing a full bunny suit to the grocery store then go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
withak posted:No one said not to wear goggles, just that no one but internet poster virologists are recommending them for widespread use. Yeah, clearly wear a bunny suit, that's clearly exactly what the original question was about. If you can't get people to cover their goddamn mouths, why would you loving give guidance recommending risk mitigation that is less important than masks? They were asking if it was reasonable and yes, if you are looking to reduce risk some eye protection is fine, and as many people have mentioned, it also stops you from unconsciously touching your eyes. Just to be clear, the CDC is stil (as of 22 Dec) publishing recommendations on how to optimize the use of eye protection with limited PPE supplies. I leave it up to you to decide if this "PPE austerity" approach is being reflected in recommendations to the general public. It is ridiculous to be wearing cloth masks at this point, although it's much better than nothing. There is a better and safer approach but without sufficient adoption of basic measures, or a surplus of provided PPE, no one will advocate for more complicated/better approaches. Thanks for being part of the problem, assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
pidan posted:The question was if the CDC recommends face shields for the general public pidan posted:I'm not advocating against using face shields, feel free to wear one if you like. i've told you a thousand times: the question is not whether you die. it's completely unimportant if you keel over. the question is how many people you kill with your arrogance and insistence on rejecting simple and basic measures until you are forced to do them. Blitter posted:Yeah, clearly wear a bunny suit, that's clearly exactly what the original question was about.  thanks for putting it well
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Kalenden posted:With the new variants circulating, is it now recommended for essential shopping/indoor activities to (1) wear FFP2 masks whenever possible and (2) also wear goggles or glasses? This was the original question. Pretty sure the answer is still that no one official is recommending this for regular people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Blitter posted:If you can't get people to cover their goddamn mouths, why would you loving give guidance recommending risk mitigation that is less important than masks? This is dead-on, and it's an infuriating problem. Our health authorities are issuing guidelines they know are wrong simply because they know people are too selfish and stupid to abide by the factual ones. Six-foot distancing? Nope, it's more like ten to twenty feet depending on conditions and which studies you're looking at. Exposure of under 15 minutes is safe? Maybe, if that volume of air was completely empty and sterile prior to the 15 minutes starting, rather than having people vent particles that hang in the air for three to seven hours come anywhere near it. Quarantine of 10 days? Yep that's fine, even though we know that's going to miss at least 5-10% of all incubation periods? Go for it! Virtually every national and international authority across the world downplayed this for too long, and we're out of runway for getting people to take this seriously and live with appropriately strict protocols.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
withak posted:no one official is recommending this for regular people also again, the science and studies clearly show it's beneficial, so you're on the spot here to explain why certain bodies not having made recommendations specific enough to your liking is a valid reason to ignore the science and data you asked for also please explain why you think this is cool and good: Kestral posted:Virtually every national and international authority across the world downplayed this for too long, and we're out of runway for getting people to take this seriously and live with appropriately strict protocols. Mithaldu fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
I am only qualified to read research papers about dirt and rocks and earthquakes, I rely on various authoritative organizations to provide medical recommendations. Am I missing something there about goggles and respirators for regular people? I prefer not to rely on media personalities or internet people for this because I have seen how bad they can screw up stuff like this in my own field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
It took the WHO until late January last year to acknowledge human-to-human transmission, even though it was completely impossible for there to have been so many cases without it being highly infectious and highly transmissible between humans. And the CDC didn't acknowledge airborne transmission until like, the fall. I forget when exactly. Anti-mask nuts need to learn that authorities aren't always wrong, but a whole lot of other people also need to learn that authorities aren't always right, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:it's wild how people swing between "who and cdc are massive liars" and "we can trust who and cdc perfectly" No one has deep faith in the soundness of the authorities. It’s just a fallback position to continue the argument at any cost. There’s an old legal aphorism that goes, “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” Here it’s #trustthescience till the science disagrees with you, then #trustthecdc. If you have neither on your side, go to Applebee’s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
withak posted:I am only qualified to read research papers about dirt and rocks and earthquakes, I rely on various authoritative organizations to provide medical recommendations. Am I missing something there about goggles and respirators for regular people? I prefer not to rely on media personalities or internet people for this because I have seen how bad they can screw up stuff like this in my own field. Well fit n95 masks and glasses are not "respirators and goggles". Why you choose to paint these measures as outlandish, I don't understand. The current guidance for healthcare in a low risk environment is n95/eyepro. Why this is seen as outlandish when your risk is similar or higher in a mixed unmasked public environment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
I'm not sure why the discussion here is so heated. I think we all agree on the central points: - there is evidence that covid-19 can infect people through the eyes - therefore, wearing eye protection is recommended in some situations - currently no health authority includes this in their guidelines for the general public pidan fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jan 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Reckon wearing eyeglasses is enough?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Fitted N95s actually are considered respirators in professional contexts. The masklike ones are “filtering facepiece respirators”.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
pidan posted:I'm not sure why the discussion here is so heated. I think we all agree on the central points: Yes. I live in a place where people are mostly sane, I can’t remember the last time I saw someone in person indoors without a mask. If you are unfortunate enough to live somewhere that spending time with unmasked people indoors is not avoidable then taking greater measures is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
withak posted:I don’t think anyone said not to wear goggles, just that no one but internet poster virologists are recommending them for widespread use. What if it makes me feel safest to invent rules for how everyone must act and then get angry at strangers on the internet for not following my perfect rules?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
withak posted:I am only qualified to read research papers about dirt and rocks and earthquakes pidan posted:I'm not sure why the discussion here is so heated. I think we all agree on the central points: 1. your position is still "wear one if you're afraid of dying, otherwise don't", which is advice that kills people through extending infection chains, and i want you to stop trying to kill people. seriously, why the gently caress are you so intent on saying things that kill people? is it so hard for you to at the very least not say things that lead to corpses? 2. fauci did recommend them for the general public 3. because you're completely failing to grasp that the explanation for "why does the cdc not recommend it for general people?" is not "because it doesn't work for general people" but: Blitter posted:Yeah, clearly wear a bunny suit, that's clearly exactly what the original question was about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
rt4 posted:Reckon wearing eyeglasses is enough? “Although eyeglasses do not provide the same extent of eye protection as goggles or a face shield, they may serve as a partial barrier that reduces the inoculum of virus in a manner similar to what has been observed for cloth masks.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
everyone involved in this fight has reported eachother this is embarrassing
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:I haven't heard of this, if you have post a link. Sorry if I was unclear: it was a question whether it is recommended now or not, not a statement! withak posted:No one has recommended that. Ok, FFP2 masks it is then, but eyeglasses might also be sensible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
If I reported no one, then I won?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
rt4 posted:Reckon wearing eyeglasses is enough? Lol, I had not read this before: Does eye protection help avoid covid posted:"Researchers in China analyzed 276 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and found that 5.8 percent wore eyeglasses daily, compared to the general population, where 31.5 percent wore eyeglasses daily. Researchers concluded that people who wore eyeglasses daily were less likely to be admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Therefore, they reason, wearing eyeglasses might offer some protection against infection." Kind of an interesting article, as it's specifically discussing the merits of eyepro for the general public. Platystemon posted:“Although eyeglasses do not provide the same extent of eye protection as goggles or a face shield, they may serve as a partial barrier that reduces the inoculum of virus in a manner similar to what has been observed for cloth masks.” Neat! It references the same [quoted] study, in a similar piece about public health measures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
HugeGrossBurrito posted:everyone involved in this fight has reported eachother this is embarrassing Lol what even is there to report? “Suspected Fishmech alt?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
HugeGrossBurrito posted:everyone involved in this fight has reported eachother this is embarrassing And they all seem unnecessarily angry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Since yesterday we entered a corona curfew from 21:00 to 04:30 in the Netherlands. There was some fierce rioting against the loss of Freedom in a couple of cities, but in Groningen things were generally quiet. It appears that the central church tower has a special bell for this purpose, since 1764, but its use was abolished in 1816, during a pestilence epidemic. It used to ring every evening, signalling the tavern owners to stop selling beer, and the citizens to go home. Thus it was called the Bierklok, Beer Bell. It is out of tune with the regular bells, and mounted somewhat a-centric, so its rhythm is somewhat irregular, on purpose. But now it rings from 20:30 to 20:40 to send people home. https://youtu.be/lPV8zAVkixw
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:it should be clear at this point to even the most casual reader of the thread: Hey, hey, calm down there. I didn't see anyone saying Covid is not dangerous or that contagion will not end our civilization. Your post reads like I advocated for someone to take risks or not keep isolating themselves and their family. That's not what I wrote, I'm only stating facts about that particular syndrome. Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker but I fail to see what statement I made that was "smug". You can go ahead and be as agitated as you want about what people post online. I see in the next couple pages, you spent an inordinate amount of words shouting at people for being wrong and honestly I don't think you'll be convincing anyone of anything with that tone. If venting helps you, though, I suppose this is a good thread for it. Edit: Like this part here, it's extremely ineffective, when trying to convince someone of something, to openly state that you are assuming their intent is malicious. I'm not talking about the profanity but your assumption of bad intent. No one that you talk to this way will pay any attention to you, because literally no one is trying to kill people. (At least not in this thread, as far as I can tell.) Mithaldu posted:1. your position is still "wear one if you're afraid of dying, otherwise don't", which is advice that kills people through extending infection chains, and i want you to stop trying to kill people. seriously, why the gently caress are you so intent on saying things that kill people? is it so hard for you to at the very least not say things that lead to corpses? Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jan 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Forget I said anything.
Sex Skeleton fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:I'm only stating facts about that particular syndrome Hippie Hedgehog posted:literally no one is trying to kill people i'm aware she doesn't have the intent, but outside of that, that is the consequence of her advocacy, and it has been going on for a long while, starting with comments against masks that said, i don't care for  games. i'm happy to put ash on my shoulders if i'm wrong, but facts and correctness are all i care about currentlythe first good use of churchbells i'm aware of in modern times
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Wearing a face shield will not protect others from you any more then just a mask. ESL isn't an excuse for just not understanding things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
mask chat: I want to buy some good masks but I don’t want to put any effort into research. I know we have goons who have done all the research and have some recommendations. I’m willing to double mask but I don’t think I’m down for a half face respirator. Might be willing to go with some eye protection too. send me some links to click and buy good masks please tia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Wearing a face shield will not protect others from you any more then just a mask. PyPy posted:mask chat: I want to buy some good masks but I don’t want to put any effort into research. I know we have goons who have done all the research and have some recommendations. I’m willing to double mask but I don’t think I’m down for a half face respirator. Might be willing to go with some eye protection too. giving useful links is hard as it all depends on where you're buying from, but uh, basic thing is just: get a n95 or kn95 and make sure that it provides resistance when breathing in and breathing out. and make sure you buy from vendors where you can expect it to be a real product
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
https://envomask.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
PyPy posted:mask chat: I want to buy some good masks but I don’t want to put any effort into research. I know we have goons who have done all the research and have some recommendations. I’m willing to double mask but I don’t think I’m down for a half face respirator. Might be willing to go with some eye protection too. Double masking mostly makes sense in two situations: If you're wearing a N95 respirator with an exhaust valve, you should wear another mask over it to filter your outbreath. Or if you can't wear an N95 respirator for whatever reason, it helps cover gaps around the masks by putting a larger cloth mask over a surgical mask: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/health/coronavirus-masks-transmission.html Other than that, I guess people wear them because you can color-coordinate the outer layer with your outfit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Someone posted this in another thread, it lets you search for stuff sold directly by amazon (i.e. no fly-by-night storefronts or drop-shippers). Not a guarantee against knockoffs, but should reduce the probability. https://timothy.fries.dev/projects/2020/amazon-search/ Does not appear to do any affiliate stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 22:36
|
|