Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[bucsfan333]

Just now, pwny said:

From the sound of it, it’s not just defeating the purpose but potentially making it significantly worse by introducing additional hand to face contact.

 Not a big brain moment.

Nope. Hand washing is happening more, and has become company policy. But all the face touching makes it moot. And, like you said, probably worse than not wearing the masks at all.

[mission27]

3 minutes ago, pwny said:

From the sound of it, it’s not just defeating the purpose but potentially making it significantly worse by introducing additional hand to face contact.

 Not a big brain moment.

Isnt the point of the mask to prevent people who are sick from spreading illness to others, not so much the other way around?  Even if you touch your face the mask is still doing its job by catching dropletts

Edited April 11, 2020 by mission27

[bucsfan333]

2 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Isnt the point of the mask to prevent people who are sick from spreading illness to others, not so much the other way around?  Even if you touch your face the mask is still doing its job by catching dropletts

By touching it repeatedly, you're touching all the germs you're breathing into it and spreading them around.

If you've got the virus and don't know, you're spreading it to surfaces people touch.

[bucsfan333]

I worked at Pfizer for a few years. They would swab your hands, arms, chest, and face mask every time you entered certain areas to make sure you were sterile.

If you breathed onto anything while you were putting on the ppe, you would fail every time.

[pwny]

9 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Isnt the point of the mask to prevent people who are sick from spreading illness to others, not so much the other way around?  Even if you touch your face the mask is still doing its job by catching dropletts

Kinda. Masks *are* more valuable to stopping the spread to others, but they do provide some protection to yourself. They won’t provide complete protection as they can’t stop all aerosols from getting through (smaller than droplets), but they do offer some support. I couldn’t tell you the percentages, but it’s somewhere between “not worth suggesting everyone wear masks when it would deplete hospital supplies” and “better than absolutely nothing”. 

But if someone is not using it on their nose, they’re still spraying droplets and aerosols all over. And if the sick person is still spraying it out, and now the not sick person is fiddling with their face more due to the mask, they’re increasing the likelihood of the infection spreading. Also by touching your face if you’re sick, you’re increasing the likelihood that someone else gets it through touch contact. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by pwny

[bucsfan333]

Just now, pwny said:

Kinda. Masks *are* more valuable to stopping the spread to others, but they do provide some protection to yourself. They won’t provide complete protection as they can’t stop all aerosols from getting through (smaller than droplets), but they do offer some support. I couldn’t tell you the percentages, but it’s somewhere between “not worth suggesting everyone wear masks when it would deplete hospital supplies” and “better than absolutely nothing”. 

But if someone is not using it on their nose, they’re still spraying droplets and aerosols all over. And if the sick person is still spraying it out, and now the not sick person is fiddling with their face more due to the mask, they’re increasing the likelihood of the infection spreading.

You also need a clean shaven face so the mask creates a clean seal all the way around.

Gaps or a beard lower the effectiveness of the mask a bit.

And lots of people are wearing the cloth masks. So they're not getting much of a seal anyway. But it makes them feel better.

[ramssuperbowl99]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016

Quote

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day.

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.)

Discussion

To date, no therapy has demonstrated efficacy for patients with Covid-19. This preliminary report describes the clinical outcomes in a small cohort of patients who were severely ill with Covid-19 and were treated with remdesivir. Although data from several ongoing randomized, controlled trials will soon provide more informative evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of remdesivir for Covid-19, the outcomes observed in this compassionate-use program are the best currently available data. Specifically, improvement in oxygen-support status was observed in 68% of patients, and overall mortality was 13% over a median follow-up of 18 days. In a recent randomized, controlled trial of lopinavir–ritonavir in patients hospitalized for Covid-19, the 28-day mortality was 22%.¹⁰ It is important to note that only 1 of 199 patients in that trial were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline. In case series and cohort studies, largely from China, mortality rates of 17 to 78% have been reported in severe cases, defined by the need for admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation, or both.^23-28 For example, among 201 patients hospitalized in Wuhan, China, mortality was 22% overall and 66% (44 of 67) among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.⁷ By way of comparison, the 13% mortality observed in this remdesivir compassionate-use cohort is noteworthy, considering the severity of disease in this patient population; however, the patients enrolled in this compassionate-treatment program are not directly comparable to those studied in these other reports. For example, 64% of remdesivir-treated patients were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline, including 8% who were receiving ECMO, and mortality in this subgroup was 18% (as compared with 5.3% in patients receiving noninvasive oxygen support), and the majority (75%) of patients were male, were over 60 years of age, and had coexisting conditions.

This is really, really promising.

And not to brag, but:

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99

[ET80]

18 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016

This is really, really promising.

And not to brag, but:

 

You get a nice, juicy football for this. Mostly because of this:

I'mma get RICH!

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, ET80 said:

You get a nice, juicy football for this. Mostly because of this:

I'mma get RICH!

i want 10%. Wet the beak.

[naptownskinsfan]

45 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said:

There are people at work that wear masks. But some don't wear them over their noses. And others are constantly touching them and moving them.

All kinda defeats the purpose.

Exactly.  Very knee-jerk reactions to the demands of customers who don't understand.  The need to wear this PPE stuff is one of the reasons why I took the LOA from work.  I love my boss and love the company I work for, but I can't stand for this decision driven out of "customer feedback." 

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

i want 10%. Wet the beak.

Steak dinner that comes out to about 4% of my return? That might get us some Chili's.

They have BBQ fajitas now.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, ET80 said:

Steak dinner that comes out to about 4% of my return? That might get us some Chili's.

They have BBQ fajitas now.

...wait we couldn't go until after everything opens up. You trickster!

[MacReady]

Looks like Gilead Sciences manufactures Remdesivir.  73 dollars a share.  WTH, I’ll buy one.  If they don’t become the sole manufacturer of the cure and go up to 100,000 dollars a share somebody owes me 74 dollars.

[rob_shadows]

6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

...wait we couldn't go until after everything opens up. You trickster!

Some might still offer carry out

[Blahstoise]

Iceland have now tested 10% of their population (34k) and have 1600 cases and 8 deaths.

50% were asymptomatic at the time of testing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210401/Iceland-finds-half-population-asymptomatic-infected-Covid-19.html