What is your plan for re-opening?

[jobo]

I'd be interested in finding out if that's true. It's in direct conflict with the recent findings by the US CDC, who said hard surfaces aren't a significant risk for transmission.

thats the problem you have to pick your expert and then ask if they have an agenda other than simple facts

here an extract, on hard surfaces

How long can coronavirus survive outside of the body?
How long can the new coronavirus survive in droplets and on surfaces?
A recent study has explored how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infectious outside the human body, either in droplets or on contaminated surfaces.[1] Two key parameters were measured: the half-life of the virus, which is the time taken for 50% of the viruses to be no longer infectious, and the maximum time at which viable viruses could be recovered. Evidence collected for SARS-CoV-2 showed that viruses in droplet aerosols (a fine mist) had a half-life of just over an hour but some could survive for three hours or more. Infectious virus could be detected on copper surfaces for up to four hours, on cardboard for up to 24 hours, and on plastic and stainless steel for at least 72 hours. These observations of virus persistence underline the value of regular disinfection of surfaces and attention to hand hygiene in controlling the spread of infection. A limitation of these studies is that they have been performed under a single set of conditions (indoors with constant temperature and humidity), and with a single initial dose of virus. It is likely that virus persistence will vary in different indoor and outdoor environments, and the length of time a surface remains contaminated will depend on the initial dose of virus to which it is exposed.

that seems far from saying hard surfaces are not a problem and seem particularly so on stainless steel and plastic, which are what petrol pumps and supermarket trolleys are made of





ive just read another from harvard no less, saying they have NO IDEA how much social distancing reduces risk ( so much for all this detailed modelling) and disagreeing with you over masks

Coronavirus Resource Center - Harvard Health

 

[jobo]

I would be very careful with this issue. In my opinion, I suspect people are being less clear with the language than they ought to be, and that has the risk of people erroneously believing that they don’t need to takes steps to guard against transmission from surfaces. I believe that surface transmission is an issue, just not as likely as once thought. But that does not mean that one shouldn’t take reasonable steps to safeguard against it.

A little common sense is in order. Let’s take a scenario where an infectious individual sneezes and droplets fall on the countertop, and is not cleaned or disinfected. Five minutes later someone else walks by, pauses for a moment and puts his hand on the countertop while checking his cell phone, scratches the corner of his lip or rubs his nose with the same hand he touched the countertop with while he continues to ponder his phone, and then moves on. I’m gonna suggest that fellow is probably now infected. There is nothing magical about a countertop that kills the virus and prevents infection.

There may be issues regarding how long the virus remains viable while sitting on the countertop, that may reduce the likelihood of transmission. Perhaps it is not viable for a long time, but I don’t know. Maybe it is viable for a half hour but not after three hours, or remains viable as long as the droplets remain wet, but not once it dries out, for example (pure speculation on my part, this is a hypothetical not based on any facts that I am aware of). There are also issues around frequently touched items like doorknobs or elevator buttons, that may be a more likely vector of infection.

But my point is, I think people need to be clear that while infection from touching surfaces may be less likely, it does not mean that it is not of concern. The CDC guidelines do not say “transmission from hard surfaces is not possible, so don’t concern yourself with it.”

72 hours seems a fair guess for that infected counter top

 

[Gerry Seymour]

thats the problem you have to pick your expert and then ask if they have an agenda other than simple facts

here an extract, on hard surfaces

How long can coronavirus survive outside of the body?
How long can the new coronavirus survive in droplets and on surfaces?
A recent study has explored how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infectious outside the human body, either in droplets or on contaminated surfaces.[1] Two key parameters were measured: the half-life of the virus, which is the time taken for 50% of the viruses to be no longer infectious, and the maximum time at which viable viruses could be recovered. Evidence collected for SARS-CoV-2 showed that viruses in droplet aerosols (a fine mist) had a half-life of just over an hour but some could survive for three hours or more. Infectious virus could be detected on copper surfaces for up to four hours, on cardboard for up to 24 hours, and on plastic and stainless steel for at least 72 hours. These observations of virus persistence underline the value of regular disinfection of surfaces and attention to hand hygiene in controlling the spread of infection. A limitation of these studies is that they have been performed under a single set of conditions (indoors with constant temperature and humidity), and with a single initial dose of virus. It is likely that virus persistence will vary in different indoor and outdoor environments, and the length of time a surface remains contaminated will depend on the initial dose of virus to which it is exposed.

that seems far from saying hard surfaces are not a problem and seem particularly so on stainless steel and plastic, which are what petrol pumps and supermarket trolleys are made of





ive just read another from harvard no less, saying they have NO IDEA how much social distancing reduces risk ( so much for all this detailed modelling) and disagreeing with you over masks

Coronavirus Resource Center - Harvard Health

The question has to also include how likely viable virus is to transfer from that hard surface. I haven't seen the CDC's data, so I'm not certain what changed their minds. What I have heard them say is that it's based on transmissability, rather than virus persistance. The two are related, but not always as directly as we might expect. Since this virus doesn't seem to transfer via mucus membrane, that may explain the lower transmissability.

 

[Flying Crane]

. Since this virus doesn't seem to transfer via mucus membrane, that may explain the lower transmissability.

What do you mean by this statement?

 

[jobo]

What do you mean by this statement?

, is that a rhetorical, what does this mean or a genuine enquiry

what it means is membranes are semi permeable and virus can and do enter the body that way, herpes for instance, you can get herpes of the eye for instance but you do need to be a bit careless.

what i dont know is if the virus can enter by the membrane. Gerry says not, but he has been wrong several times on this thread,, but it seems of little relivance as a number of these membranes are right in the breathing tract, if you insist on picking you nose for instance it seems odds onto infect yourself

 

[Steve]

I highly doubt skribs' perspective is based on money. I've not got that sense from his and his conversations here, particularly since there have been parts in time where I believe he mentioned working for free to help out his dojo. I think it's more a result of living location-if you live somewhere where it's not that common YET, you're not going to be as concerned about it. I thought most of it was propaganda myself until it hit NY. The issue is that lack of concern is what causes it to get worse.

Hey, reading through this thread. Just mentioning skribs location is listed as Lakewood washtingont. Which is very near Ground zero for the American pandemic. Washington was pretty cautious early, in contrast to new York, which seems to have made a huge difference.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you mean by this statement?

The virus appears to infect the respiratory system directly, rather than via mucus membranes. From what I understand, that means getting it in your mouth (for instance) isn't much of a problem. I think it also means the virus isn't absorbed within the nasal membrane. So when you touch your face with the virus on your hand, the risk is that you'll subsequently inhale that virus. That's multiple points of transfer along the way, which reduces the chance of it reaching the respiratory system rather dramatically. Droplets and aerosolized particles in the air can be inhaled directly, so are much more problematic.

 

[Flying Crane]

The virus appears to infect the respiratory system directly, rather than via mucus membranes. From what I understand, that means getting it in your mouth (for instance) isn't much of a problem. I think it also means the virus isn't absorbed within the nasal membrane. So when you touch your face with the virus on your hand, the risk is that you'll subsequently inhale that virus. That's multiple points of transfer along the way, which reduces the chance of it reaching the respiratory system rather dramatically. Droplets and aerosolized particles in the air can be inhaled directly, so are much more problematic.

I had not been aware of that distinction. I am aware however that it is believed to be contagious through the eyes.

If what you say is true, then it seems like Covid would be less contagious than viruses such as the flu, but the opposite seems to be true by a significant amount. Do you have any information about that?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Hey, reading through this thread. Just mentioning skribs location is listed as Lakewood washtingont. Which is very near Ground zero for the American pandemic. Washington was pretty cautious early, in contrast to new York, which seems to have made a huge difference.

That cautiousness absolutely helped, which is why I'm warning people about being cautious in their areas where it's not big yet. But even in the places that already had it-it can return. I've heard (haven't looked enough into it as I don't have the energy) that in a lot of areas in europe it's coming back now that they have laxed their regulations about it. If that's true then washington, NY, and basically anywhere else still needs to be vigilant and slow with it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I had not been aware of that distinction. I am aware however that it is believed to be contagious through the eyes.

If what you say is true, then it seems like Covid would be less contagious than viruses such as the flu, but the opposite seems to be true by a significant amount. Do you have any information about that?

I don’t understand all of the difference, but part of it is a lack of any general “herd immunity”. Most folks have some antibodies for something similar to whatever flu strains they run into, and that seems to make it harder to catch (I think it makes it require a higher viral load, on average, but that might be a misunderstanding on my part).

it may also be that this virus is just that much better at infecting once it reaches a target cell. It’s hard to find that kind of detail in quick searches, because there’s simply so much high-level stuff showing up in the algorithms.

 

[jobo]

I had not been aware of that distinction. I am aware however that it is believed to be contagious through the eyes.

If what you say is true, then it seems like Covid would be less contagious than viruses such as the flu, but the opposite seems to be true by a significant amount. Do you have any information about that?

, i dont think you can get it through the eyes, though theres a large emphasis on THINK, lets just say that there is no clinical evidence that this is so. there is suspicion that conjunctivitis may be a symptom, far from confirmed and that it could be spread by tears, even less confirmation. though largely irrelevant i would have thought, unless the shopping bill was so much the person before you burst into tears

its not greatly more infectious than most virus and significant ly less infectious than some, like measles for instance , it had a r rate of circa 2 where measles has one of 14

as to flu ? ,,,, it depends which flu and which year, the 1918 pandemic varied across the world, but was also r 2 in the uk it was in excess of 5 in some places

most flu are between 1 and 2, it has to be above one to be an out break at all

so no not greatly more infectious than flu, possible more deadly than most,, , but then again, not by that much in most of the population, as we may or may not find out if they ever release the details of the mortality rate

 

[Flying Crane]

I don’t understand all of the difference, but part of it is a lack of any general “herd immunity”. Most folks have some antibodies for something similar to whatever flu strains they run into, and that seems to make it harder to catch (I think it makes it require a higher viral load, on average, but that might be a misunderstanding on my part).

it may also be that this virus is just that much better at infecting once it reaches a target cell. It’s hard to find that kind of detail in quick searches, because there’s simply so much high-level stuff showing up in the algorithms.

Yeah. And as has been noted, we are still learning about this virus. Just when we think weve got a grip on some aspect of it, we discover we are wrong and it’s worse than we thought.

Which is why I think it’s very important to keep up the caution when some potential good news comes along. ‘Cause it may not be true, or not true for everyone.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

, i dont think you can get it through the eyes, though theres a large emphasis on THINK, lets just say that there is no clinical evidence that this is so. there is suspicion that conjunctivitis may be a symptom, far from confirmed and that it could be spread by tears, even less confirmation. though largely irrelevant i would have thought, unless the shopping bill was so much the person before you burst into tears

its not greatly more infectious than most virus and significant ly less infectious than some, like measles for instance , it had a r rate of circa 2 where measles has one of 14

as to flu ? ,,,, it depends which flu and which year, the 1918 pandemic varied across the world, but was also r 2 in the uk it was in excess of 5 in some places

most flu are between 1 and 2, it has to be above one to be an out break at all

so no not greatly more infectious than flu, possible more deadly than most,, , but then again, not by that much in most of the population, as we may or may not find out if they ever release the details of the mortality rate

There’s evidence the virus lives well and transfers to/from the eyes well, but I haven’t seen anything definitive showing it can infect directly via the eyes. Given that it doesn’t infect via mucus membranes, I suspect the risk with the eyes is more that a person will rub their eyes then nose or some such.

 

[_Simon_]

Things have progressed here in terms of easing of restrictions.. currently have to keep the 1.5 metre distance still, but allowed to have 5 visitors at home. 1st of June we can have 20 people over, and 22nd June alot of indoor sports centers are reopening, cafes allowed 20 patrons etc.

Already seen heaps of messages about dojos planning to reopen then, all at once. Gotta say, even though it's great, still makes me uneasy... still feels too soon..

 

[jobo]

Things have progressed here in terms of easing of restrictions.. currently have to keep the 1.5 metre distance still, but allowed to have 5 visitors at home. 1st of June we can have 20 people over, and 22nd June alot of indoor sports centers are reopening, cafes allowed 20 patrons etc.

Already seen heaps of messages about dojos planning to reopen then, all at once. Gotta say, even though it's great, still makes me uneasy... still feels too soon..

personal responsibility, is what was missing from most of this, if you think its to early, keep out of cafes, dojo and house parties

 

[_Simon_]

personal responsibility, is what was missing from most of this, if you think its to early, keep out of cafes, dojo and house parties

Lol.. well actually, you assumed I wouldn't be . I'll be keeping out unless it's a safe environment, which pretty much every time I've been out, not many at all were social distancing. Also, I care about the health of wellbeing of everyone, so just concerned on that front.

 

[jobo]

Lol.. well actually, you assumed I wouldn't be . I'll be keeping out unless it's a safe environment, which pretty much every time I've been out, not many at all were social distancing. Also, I care about the health of wellbeing of everyone, so just concerned on that front.

but they have personal responsibility as well, wishing them well is fine, but i dont spend a great deal of time worrying about people who decided to drive themselves and their families over railway crossing with out looking

i mean a lot of this is rather dependent on if you believed the measures they are scaling down were actually effective or not, never mind suspecting as i do, that some of them were very much counter productive, either specifically for the virus or just for the state of peoples well being in general

 

[_Simon_]

but they have personal responsibility as well, wishing them well is fine, but i dont spend a great deal of time worrying about people who decided to drive themselves and their families over railway crossing with out looking

i mean a lot of this is rather dependent on if you believed the measures they are scaling down were actually effective or not, never mind suspecting as i do, that some of them were very much counter productive, either specifically for the virus or just for the state of peoples well being in general

Oh of course, yep, I'm not actually worrying heavily in terms of losing sleep over it, no one can control anyone else. Just heard of situations in which restrictions were eased a bit, it spread immensely, and they had to go into harder lockdowns soon after. Personal responsibility is key here, of course, and that can only be encouraged rather than guaranteed.

The measures seemed to prove effective and cases (known cases of course), along with very widespread testing done are showing that cases are declining. Where we are anyway, but who knows anything really at this stage.

 

[jobo]

Oh of course, yep, I'm not actually worrying heavily in terms of losing sleep over it, no one can control anyone else. Just heard of situations in which restrictions were eased a bit, it spread immensely, and they had to go into harder lockdowns soon after. Personal responsibility is key here, of course, and that can only be encouraged rather than guaranteed.

The measures seemed to prove effective and cases (known cases of course), along with very widespread testing done are showing that cases are declining. Where we are anyway, but who knows anything really at this stage.

which situations have you heard were scaling back a BIT lead to an IMMINENCE increase and then a harder lock down ?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

personal responsibility, is what was missing from most of this, if you think its to early, keep out of cafes, dojo and house parties

Problem is, with an infectious disease everyone's actions have a high probability of affecting others. So folks avoiding those places still end up eventually interacting with someone who doesn't.