Coronavirus

[shubla]

Finnish government finally gave "a recommendation" to use masks in public transport.
But I'm rather skeptical about it. At first I thought that recommending or even forcing mask usage would be a good way to prevent infections.
But during the recent days and weeks, I've thought more about it, and I'm pretty sure that the effect from masks will be negligible.

First problem is, that in Finland, there is currently no regulation whatsoever what kind of masks can be sold. I'm pretty sure that there are great differences between efficiency of masks. Also, a minor concern especially with cloth masks is safety of the fabric to the user, when you breath in all the things from it, for cheap plastic masks this concern also exists. Some kind of certificates would be cool.

Second problem is, that for now you have to buy the mask yourself, one-time-use masks cost a bit more than 1€ a piece, and you need at least 2 of them every day if you use public transportation for work. That's a lot of expenditures for poor people. The government recommends that states should provide masks for low income people, and that government will pay them for the expenses, but so far no state has made a decision about who exactly gets masks, what kind of masks, how many etc. And I can say that there is a rather likely possibility that many states will completely fuck up with distribution of the masks.

Third is, that masks, especially cloth masks, are only efficient for an hour at the best, likely less. They will get wet from breathing and dirty from air, and then protect no-one, as the virus spreads from the dust and wetness of the mask when you cough or speak. And why is this a problem? Because people do not know how to use masks or don't just care enough to use them properly. People will definitely touch their masks, all the time, re-use their masks, wear them for extended periods of time... The effect of the masks will be practically zero! Recommendation says that you should swap the mask and throw the old one away even after drinking or eating. No one is going to do that.

Overall I feel like government is overreacting because of politics. And its complete chaos, they throw decisions and recommendations left and right without really fixing anything. There are titles in newspapers all the time about some experts saying that the government is breaking law blah blah. For example, there was major discussion a week ago about forcing everyone coming to Finland from aboard to 2 weeks of quarantine. But then some experts realized that the current law doesn't allow quarantining somebody only because he came from certain country if he doesn't show any symptoms and test is negative. Then the government quickly started saying that they have no plans to limit entry to country and that it is decision of disease-specialized doctors (who by law are the only ones with right to give the decision for quarantine), even though just a week earlier they were talking about having these disease-specialized doctors in all airports giving quarantining orders to everybody even if they had no symptoms!

Quarantine in finland is a joke anyways, its basically A4 paper form which says that you are in quarantine, you can pretty much rip it to pieces after leaving the airport and then do whatever you like.

There is also some government-made coronavirus-location-tracking application, that is coming out in the end of August. I don't get why. Why it couldn't come out now? Are they still trying to teach the monkeys that they hired to use keyboards?

Currently 1 person in Finland is in ICU because of coronavirus, and 6 are in hospital (maybe including the 1 in ICU). We have capacity in the capital area for more than 380 people on the ICU, so I'm rather disappointed in government making all these recommendations about remote working etc.. For example, the university just yesterday decided that they will keep the building locked until at least the end of september, even though it was supposed to be finally opened next week...

Why are we going through all this? To save few old people who will soon die anyway? Of course human life is important, but is there justification to take BILLIONS in debt, and basically ruin lives of millions for years (and some possibly for rest of their lives) by forcing them to stay indoors for year(s)?

If there is a vaccine someday, I'm not going to take it. Too high risk that they fucked up something again with it, and I don't think that it's good to teach the government that they can fuck around for few years until vaccine comes and then act like nothing ever happened. They should be able to deal with diseases like this in the future as well, and then there may not be a get out of prison card called vaccine so easily available... So its for demonstrating my opinion, but also because I don't feel like coronavirus would be a major risk, when the amount of people that have died because of it in Finland that are less than 50 is like 3.

[AtoB]

there is currently no regulation whatsoever what kind of masks can be sold.

I am pretty sure that your country also has some sane consumer protection acts, because of such legislation everything available in normal retail stores comes with the following disclaimer:

Screenshot-20200814082545-715x930.jpg

which enumerates all required abilities of the 'masks' the population is mandated to wear: none, you just have to comply.

This is a Gesslerhut, nothing more.

[MagicManICT]

Recent article in Wired magazine https://www.wired.com/story/scientists- ... d-a-laser/ Sorry for the paywall if you can't get past it. The article should be available to read, but I don't recall what their digital article limits are.

To summarize the article:

A group of scientists put various materials to the test with a relatively simple testing device made from a modestly priced laser and cell phone camera. Most masks and materials at least do a reasonable enough job. A few materials/mask are really more harmfully than not wearing one at all (runner's neck gaiters were specifically mentioned). Not much was mentioned on the effectiveness on any one material as the article was more about these scientists developing a cheap, easy method to find the relative effectiveness for masks for poorer regions of the world. (Or maybe those that want to make masks, and want to make the most effective masks they can.) The method for building the device is supposed to be published within the next few weeks, if not already.

disclaimer

To say "no protection" is just as wrong as saying "100% effective." There is a middle ground. Some protection is better than none. Sometimes warning labels go too far under the guise of "protection." The assumption is, quite correctly, that the public doesn't really understand what "95% effective" means vs "65% effective." could they? Maybe, but the average public isn't trained in that level of math and scientific understanding. I've had the science and math education, and I'm not sure I could properly explain it without going to a website to look it up and just quote from there.

[AtoB]

To say "no protection" is just as wrong as saying "100% effective." There is a middle ground. Some protection is better than none. Sometimes warning labels go too far under the guise of "protection." The assumption is, quite correctly, that the public doesn't really understand what "95% effective" means vs "65% effective." could they? Maybe, but the average public isn't trained in that level of math and scientific understanding. I've had the science and math education, and I'm not sure I could properly explain it without going to a website to look it up and just quote from there.

There surely is a middle ground.

But the politicians here settled on 0% masks being enough and up to 25,000€ fines for not wearing one. Feel free to make up your mind on what the goal might be, public health can't be the objective or they would have mandated something that actually works.

[Zentetsuken]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKCN2590NH

hm, very interesting

[shubla]

there is currently no regulation whatsoever what kind of masks can be sold.

I am pretty sure that your country also has some sane consumer protection acts, because of such legislation everything available in normal retail stores comes with the following disclaimer:

Screenshot-20200814082545-715x930.jpg

which enumerates all required abilities of the 'masks' the population is mandated to wear: none, you just have to comply.

This is a Gesslerhut, nothing more.

Well they are sold as face masks, not as a protection against anything so there is really no need for disclaimers. I think only thing that law mandates masks to do is not to cause excessive harm, for example, not to be poisonous.

Recent article in Wired magazine https://www.wired.com/story/scientists- ... d-a-laser/ Sorry for the paywall if you can't get past it. The article should be available to read, but I don't recall what their digital article limits are.

To summarize the article:

A group of scientists put various materials to the test with a relatively simple testing device made from a modestly priced laser and cell phone camera. Most masks and materials at least do a reasonable enough job. A few materials/mask are really more harmfully than not wearing one at all (runner's neck gaiters were specifically mentioned). Not much was mentioned on the effectiveness on any one material as the article was more about these scientists developing a cheap, easy method to find the relative effectiveness for masks for poorer regions of the world. (Or maybe those that want to make masks, and want to make the most effective masks they can.) The method for building the device is supposed to be published within the next few weeks, if not already.

disclaimer

To say "no protection" is just as wrong as saying "100% effective." There is a middle ground. Some protection is better than none. Sometimes warning labels go too far under the guise of "protection." The assumption is, quite correctly, that the public doesn't really understand what "95% effective" means vs "65% effective." could they? Maybe, but the average public isn't trained in that level of math and scientific understanding. I've had the science and math education, and I'm not sure I could properly explain it without going to a website to look it up and just quote from there.

But did they test how much the effectiveness of masks decreases when dust and wetness from breathing accumulates? I think this is a thing where there are major differences between materials.

[MagicManICT]

But did they test how much the effectiveness of masks decreases when dust and wetness from breathing accumulates? I think this is a thing where there are major differences between materials.

From what I read in the article, the goal was the develop a low cost testing device anyone could implement, not necessarily find specific information on any one material. They did mention testing a few things just to see comparatively how the system worked. I'm sure there's some major differences in materials in comparing initial use (within 5 minutes) and extended use (a couple of hours), too.

[shubla]

To the surprise of no one, so far around 10% in public transportation use masks, after the recommendation that is
But not like it would matter because no one would use them properly anyway.

[Karede]

To the surprise of no one, so far around 10% in public transportation use masks, after the recommendation that is
But not like it would matter because no one would use them properly anyway.

Masks are just security theater, really. As you say, people don't even wear them properly. Just about everyone I see with a face covering uses either a basic bandana or has it tucked under their nose.

[MagicManICT]

Just about everyone I see with a face covering uses either a basic bandana

Which is fine. You don't need N95 or even medical grade masks. Even a plastic face shield has been shown to be effective enough at blocking the virus (just not as effective as a cloth face mask of some sort).

has it tucked under their nose.

In this case, just don't bother wearing it. It's kind of like an F1 driver standing on the hood of their vehicle while trying to make a tight hairpin turn at 80 kmph. If people just want to be that stupid, give them a wide berth. Or make a fast sign and ask them to wear it. It should read "Hi! I'm stupid!"