1036 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree let's not get diverted on this 222nm thing, but you are the one that brought it up after all.

 

But Mind is right - you aren't really going to increase maximum lifespan by "sterilizing the world". That is not a quaint notion, it is a fact on several basis. Firstly, it's totally impractical. Second, humans are adapted to live in a world populated by microorganism and we generally become unhealthy in a increasingly sterile environment (for one our immune systems seem to go haywire in the absence of a significant number of microorganisms to fight and tends to eventually turn on itself). And lastly, microorganisms don't seem to sent the limit on ultimate lifespan. Yes, you can probably increase the average lifespan by controlling microorganisms, particularly in parts of the world where poor sanitation prevails. But you aren't going to significantly increase the maximum lifespan through that route. Maximum lifespan as testified to by the most believable historical accounts seem to be stubbornly stuck about where they are now.

 

Specifically, the covid-19 virus is not going away. No matter how many vaccines you give, no matter how many masks you mandate, no matter if you bath the world in 222nm UV light. This isn't a slowly mutating virus like smallpox that you can build a vaccine that generates a robust immunity that last for decades. This is a fairly rapidly mutating virus that you can only get a modest immune response from the vaccines we've been able to invent. That is not conductive to eradication in the manner of smallpox. 

 

Covid-19 is here and it's here to stay. But, so are the other 3 or 4 coronaviruses that are endemic in mankind. They also were once novel viruses that had recently jumped into humans and caused significant disease and death (see the 1890 Russian "flu" - most likely a coronavirus that jumped from cattle). We don't worry about these viruses because as they adapted to their new hosts they became increasingly less lethal. To the point they now cause about 30% of the common cold. So shall it ultimately be with covid, and we are significantly along the path to that destination today.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 08 December 2022 - 10:11 PM.

[Hip]

You ascribe aging to accumulated damage. That is likely part of the equation. But it seems more likely that aging is part of our genetic program. We age to make way for younger generations so that adaptation and evolution can occur. We age because we are in a sense designed to age.

 
I am not really ascribing microbial-caused ill health to accumulated damage.

 

It's the standard models of ageing which ascribes ageing to accumulated damage, or to wear and tear. Like the oxidation theory of ageing, the accumulated DNA damage theory, cross-linking theory, etc. These are all accumulated damage mechanisms.

 

Now all those standard accumulated damage ageing process are certainly happening, and will kill you off eventually.  

 

 

But the proposed pathogen theory of ageing is a little different in the way it operates. When infectious microbes hack into your immune system, in order to switch off or thwart your immune response, it's not so much an accumulated damage situation, it's more like computer hacker that gets into some critical infrastructure of a country, like the power network, and screws up the functioning of that system. 

 

All of us have microbes permanently living in our organs which have screwed up our immune system to some degree. How are you going to deal with the cancerous cells that appear all the time, and are normally destroyed by our immune system, if your immune system is sub-optimal?  

 

Such screwed up immune systems are probably the explanation for autoimmune diseases as well, which are diseases caused by immune malfunction.

 

 

There can also be an accumulated damage element to the pathogen theory of ageing though: for example, heart valve disease is linked to certain viruses living within the connective tissues of the heart valves. The immune system is constantly trying to eliminate these viruses, but fails to do so, due to the immune evasion "hacking" of the viruses. However, the constant immune system attempts to fight the virus leads to tissue damage of the heart valves, and this is how you can get heart valve disease. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 08 December 2022 - 10:03 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

If you're right then you *really* ought to be out there supporting DRACO rather than focusing on these masks.

 

But it seems very unlikely that you are right. Given an understanding of natural selection, adaptation, and evolution, you'd predict that most organisms would have a built in limit on maximum lifespan. Adaption and evolution really needs a certain amount of turnover to work.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 08 December 2022 - 10:16 PM.

[Hip]

But Mind is right - you aren't really going to increase maximum lifespan by "sterilizing the world". That is not a quaint notion, it is a fact on several basis. Firstly, it totally impractical. Second, humans are adapted to live in a world populated by microorganism and we generally become unhealthy in a increasing sterile environment (for one our immune systems seem to go haywire in the absence of a significant number of microorganisms to fight and tends to eventually turn on itself). And lastly, microorganisms don't seem to sent the limit on ultimate lifespan. Yes, you can probably increase the average lifespan by controlling microorganisms, particularly in parts of the world where poor sanitation prevails. But you aren't going to significantly increase the maximum lifespan through that route. Maximum lifespan as testified to by the most believable historical accounts seem to be stubbornly stuck about where they are now.

 

We cannot sterilise the world, but we can certainly sterilise our bodies of pathogens, at least for future generations (it's already too late for us). 

 

We can increase the roll out of vaccines that protect us from infectious pathogens with known links to disease. 

 

Unlike COVID vaccines which have a short duration of action before protection is lost (this is due to intrinsic characteristics of coronavirus), for most pathogens, a single shot of a vaccine will offer decades of protection. So we should be able to offer the next generation full immunity to all the microbes known to be linked to chronic disease, once we develop the appropriate vaccines. 

 

 

It's true that our immune system needs regular exposure to infection in order to remain healthy. But there are plenty of infections out there which do not cause any permanent harm. Cold viruses for example, these give our immune system a workout, but do not cause long-term harm, because cold viruses are fully eliminated by the immune response. Then there are many beneficial bacteria that we would like in our guts. We don't want to eliminate all microbes, we just want to selectively deal with the pathogenic ones which are linked to serious disease. 

 

 

I think by preventing all the major chronic diseases you will increase lifespan and certainly healthspan. 

 

Look at this table of the causes of death by percentage. Almost all deaths are due to chronic disease or infection. So infectious pathogens may be responsible for 90% of human deaths, even in the 1st world.

Edited by Hip, 08 December 2022 - 10:33 PM.

[Hip]

If you're right then you *really* ought to be out there supporting DRACO rather than focusing on these masks.

 

But it seems very unlikely that you are right. Given an understanding of natural selection, adaptation, and evolution, you'd predict that most organisms would have a built in limit on maximum lifespan. Adaption and evolution really needs a certain amount of turnover to work.

 

I've communicated with the people who have set up a fork of the DRACO project (Kimer Med, they've renamed DRACO as VTose). From what I gather, it's not clear if DRACO/VTose will be able to clear these chronic intracellular viral infections which are linked to disease. 

 

DRACO/VTose may work well for acute infections, but not chronic infections. 

 

So at the moment, the best approach for chronic infection may be prevention with vaccines, rather than trying to eliminate the infection after it has already established itself in the tissues. 

 

 

I agree that evolution may have set a limit on human lifespan, in order to get a turnover of people. So the natural ageing mechanisms that create this limit may be hard to overcome.

 

However, we should be able to deal with the pathogenic microbes which can greatly shorten both healthspan and lifespan.   

[Dorian Grey]

A little prezi for our dear friend Hip.  Dr Been discusses the latest Harvard study on the antiviral immune system in the nose, and how it is dramatically affected by temperature...  Specifically cold!  

 

 

At the end, he jokes about a possible nose sock to keep your nose warm, but is there any other appliance that might cover your nose and keep its environment even slightly warmer?  

 

I'll bet Hip has an idea!  

[Mind]

Here is the chart of Hong Kong COVID cases. Just remember that Hong Kong has had a mask mandate for indoor, public, and OUTDOOR spaces for nearly the entire time of this chart. Nearly the entire population has been injected and yet they have experienced waves of cases and another huge wave is ongoing now....and everyone in Hong Kong is wearing masks, a lot of respirators as well. Masking was a total failure to stop transmission during this media-created COVID panic. We have real world data to confirm this - which backs-up multiple previous RCT studies showing masking would not be effective during a pandemic.

Attached Files

•  Hong Kong COVID.jpg   90.43KB   0 downloads

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #786

 

It is an interesting factoid that Tycho Brahe never suffered from a cold after his 20th year.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 10 December 2022 - 03:45 AM.

[Hip]

 the latest Harvard study on the antiviral immune system in the nose, and how it is dramatically affected by temperature...  Specifically cold!  

 

Yes, I saw that report, it makes sense, and could help explain why colds and flu are more common in the winter.  

 

 

As an aside, an interesting piece of research found that spraying your nose with saline solution when you've caught COVID reduces your chances of hospitalisation by 8-fold.

 

This would be a remarkable result if it read did reduce hospitalisation by 8 times.

 

However, they did not have a control group in this study, instead they just compared the number of hospitalisations in their test group to the national average. So this figure of 8-fold should be taken with.... a pinch of salt! But definitely worth doing if you catch COVID.

 

Saline has an antiviral effect in the nose because the immune system can convert the salt into bleach, which fights viruses.

[Hip]

Here is the chart of Hong Kong COVID cases. Just remember that Hong Kong has had a mask mandate for indoor, public, and OUTDOOR spaces for nearly the entire time of this chart. Nearly the entire population has been injected and yet they have experienced waves of cases and another huge wave is ongoing now....and everyone in Hong Kong is wearing masks, a lot of respirators as well. Masking was a total failure to stop transmission during this media-created COVID panic. We have real world data to confirm this - which backs-up multiple previous RCT studies showing masking would not be effective during a pandemic.

 

The graph show that Hong Kong's restrictions, which include mandatory mask wearing, were doing extremely well at stopping COVID delta transmission, as the flat curve of the graph shows.

 

Cases shot up in March 2022 in Hong Kong due to the arrival of the much more transmissible omicron strain, which masks are thought to be less effective against, and cloth masks may not work at all.

 

 

This is a very interesting article: Why Cloth Masks Might Not Be Enough as Omicron Spreads

 

Look a the table entitled "Time it takes to transmit an infectious dose of Covid-19".

 

You can see from the table that if both people are wearing N95 masks, it would take on average 25 hours for omicron to pass from an infected person to an uninfected person. But if both have only cloth masks, the virus transmits in just 27 minutes.

Edited by Hip, 10 December 2022 - 05:14 AM.

[Mind]

The graph show that Hong Kong's restrictions, which include mandatory mask wearing, were doing extremely well at stopping COVID delta transmission, as the flat curve of the graph shows.

 

Cases shot up in March 2022 in Hong Kong due to the arrival of the much more transmissible omicron strain, which masks are thought to be less effective against, and cloth masks may not work at all.

 

 

This is a very interesting article: Why Cloth Masks Might Not Be Enough as Omicron Spreads

 

Look a the table entitled "Time it takes to transmit an infectious dose of Covid-19".

 

You can see from the table that if both people are wearing N95 masks, it would take on average 25 hours for omicron to pass from an infected person to an uninfected person. But if both have only cloth masks, the virus transmits in just 27 minutes.

 

So you are saying, the masks don't work.

[Hip]

So you are saying, the masks don't work.

 

I am saying that the Hong Kong data you posted is good evidence that masks are effective. 

 

The Hong Kong data demonstrates that masking and the other restrictions Hong Kong put into place were extremely good at curbing the spread of delta, as the graph data you posted shows. Hong Kong had almost no deaths up until omicron came along in March 2022.

 

And remember that Hong Kong is one of the most densely packed areas on Earth, so to achieve negligible deaths in such a crowed placed is an even more remarkable feat.

 

Once the much more transmissible omicron came along, however, their mask policy failed to prevent an exponential wave of COVID cases and deaths.

 

That does not mean masks do not work for omicron, they still reduce viral transmission, but just not enough to keep omicron completely under control.

 

 

To understand this, you need to put on your mathematical hat:

 

Remember that pandemics are subject to the law of exponential growth or exponential decrease. Which means that if the transmission rate R goes over 1, you get exponential growth. Even if R just goes a little above 1, you still get exponential growth of COVID cases. Whereas if you keep R below 1 with things like masks, you get exponential decrease.

 

Hong Kong stayed with R below 1 for the whole of the pandemic, indicated by negligible numbers of COVID cases and deaths.

 

But when omicron came along, that tipped the scales, and pushed R just above 1, which then resulted in an exponential wave of cases.

 

This is what exponential systems are like: they are very sensitive to tiny changes in R. Just increase R by a tiny bit above 1, and you can suddenly find yourself with exponential growth of COVID cases. 

 

 

 

If just a few more restrictions could be put in place in Hong Kong, such as using more effective N95 masks, then you could bring R below 1, and the COVID cases would die down to near zero again.

 

You can see from the table in the article I posted that N95 masks are 5 times more effective than surgical masks. So if Hong Kong switched to the more expensive N95 masks, they might once again completely contain COVID. 

 

Unfortunately N95 masks are much less comfortable than surgical masks for long term use, and much more expensive: N95 masks cost about $0.50 each, whereas surgical masks cost $0.01 each. 

Edited by Hip, 10 December 2022 - 11:01 PM.

[Hip]

If anyone wants to see an online demo of an exponential COVID cases calculator, this website offers one that you can play with.

 

At the top of the page, the slider allows you to adjust R, the person to person transmission rate of the virus. If you set R less than one, you see the new COVID cases dwindle to nothing. But as soon as R is set above 1, you get an exponential growth of cases. 

 

So all pandemic interventions aim to get R below 1 if possible, so that new cases dwindle and decrease. 

 

But depending on how infectious the virus is in the first place, it may or may not be possible to reduce R to below 1.

 

 

Without any pandemic restrictions or interventions (like masks, lockdowns, etc), the R value for delta is about 5. That means on average, each infected person spreads the delta virus to 5 more people. 

 

Whereas the R value for omicron is 15, which is 3 times higher. 

 

This is why it's harder to get R below 1 for omicron, because you start with R = 15 to begin with. Then you need to implement many interventions to impede viral transmission in order to bring R below 1, if you want near zero COVID cases.

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 December 2022 - 11:03 PM.

[Mind]

It is and always was theatre. Politicians, rich elites, and even public "health" leaders have hardly ever obeyed any mask rules.

 

Take a look at Karen Bass when she was sworn in as Los Angeles Mayor, then take a look at a meeting she attended with most of the same people. At the public swearing in, everyone was wearing masks. At the meeting in a smaller enclosed space, no one was wearing masks. 

 

It makes no sense.

 

The mask mandates make no sense.

 

The politicians know it. They are just playing for the camera. When they are off camera, they never wear masks. The masks are for YOU - not them. They are the masters. You are the servants.

Attached Files

•  Karen Bass Masked.jpg   68.34KB   0 downloads
•  Karen Bass No Mask.jpg   89.78KB   0 downloads

Edited by Mind, 16 December 2022 - 02:29 PM.

[Mind]

NYTimes claims experts advise the use of masks because of the "science". The article has proof, linking to a study that shows masks DON'T work...lol. US media has been absolutely awful during the COVID panic, sowing fear and using "the science" (much of it junk), to push policies that didn't work.

[Mind]

The worst hypocrites are doctors who tell everyone to wear masks and then party at conferences maskless.

 

It was always theatre. Robust RCT studies prior to the media-created COVID panic showed that public masking was not effective in stopping the spread of influenza-like illnesses. We now have real-world data from the past two years which shows EXACTLY the same thing.

 

Recall that Dr. Fauci initially said masks would not be effective - because he reviewed "the science". He was correct. Within about a month he completely reversed his recommendation based upon something. We don't know what and neither does Dr. Fauci. According to recent testimony, when Dr. Fauci was asked if he could name or point to a study showing masks "worked" he could not name a single one.

 

Dr. Fauci increasingly looks like a megalomaniac and a liar.

[Mind]

The absolute and total failure of masking as a pandemic response continues to be revealed.

 

Take Japan for example. Right now they are experiencing another wave of cases that is reaching near record heights and they are at record numbers of deaths per day - EVEN THOUGH they have near 100% compliance with masking in public throughout the pandemic.

 

US media used to write about how awesome places like South Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan were because of their 100% compliance with masking - like this article in Forbes - which claimed they were controlling COVID through masking. Now we see the masking did absolutely nothing.

 

Funny thing is that the Forbes writer referenced (junk) studies that COVID could be stopped through masking.

 

 

 

A  study published in April by a team of researchers in Hong Kong, France, the UK and Finland found “a near perfect correlation between early universal masking and successful suppression of daily case growth rates and/or reduction from peak daily case growth rates,” and that 80% to 90% masking has the potential of “eventually eliminating the disease.”

 

"Eliminating the disease". ROFL! Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan have nearly 100% masking and they still had wave after wave after wave of COVID cases over the last couple of years. That study needs to be retracted.

[Hip]

The absolute and total failure of masking as a pandemic response continues to be revealed.

 

Take Japan for example. Right now they are experiencing another wave of cases that is reaching near record heights and they are at record numbers of deaths per day - EVEN THOUGH they have near 100% compliance with masking in public throughout the pandemic.

 

US media used to write about how awesome places like South Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan were because of their 100% compliance with masking - like this article in Forbes - which claimed they were controlling COVID through masking. Now we see the masking did absolutely nothing.

 

Funny thing is that the Forbes writer referenced (junk) studies that COVID could be stopped through masking.

 

 

"Eliminating the disease". ROFL! Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan have nearly 100% masking and they still had wave after wave after wave of COVID cases over the last couple of years. That study needs to be retracted.

 

I previously explained how masking contained delta but not omicron. This is in terms of R values. If you don't understand R values, you haven't a hope in hell of understanding the dynamics of a pandemic. 

[Daniel Cooper]

I previously explained how masking contained delta but not omicron. This is in terms of R values. If you don't understand R values, you haven't a hope in hell of understanding the dynamics of a pandemic. 

 

Ah, then you would agree that masks are useless now given that Omicron and it's derivatives are the only variants in circulation?

[Hip]

Ah, then you would agree that masks are useless now given that Omicron and it's derivatives are the only variants in circulation?

 

Not at all. Nothing is as simple as you are trying to make out.

 

If you are a vulnerable person and need protection from COVID, a property fitted N95 mask will provide almost a 100% guarantee that you will not catch COVID, even if you spend the whole week in the same room with an omicron-infected person. 

 

So nobody should be saying that masks are useless, as that might misinform people. If you are a vulnerable person, a mask will work for you.

 

 

 

When delta was around, masks combined other transmission control approaches (like social distancing, lockdowns, etc) kept R below 1, so that in many Asian countries, the pandemic petered out, and for a long time, they prevented the pandemic appearing almost entirely. 

 

When omicron appeared, which is much more contagious than delta, the same transmission control approaches all combined could not quite keep R below 1, so an exponential explosion of cases occurred. Cases will always explode exponentially when R goes above 1.

 

So in this era of omicron, it is no longer easy to totally wipe out the pandemic, as many Asian countries were previously able to do. But that does not mean masks have stopped working. They are working with the same efficacy as before. I just means they are not quite effective enough to keep R below 1 given the increased contagiousness of omicron. 

 

But if for example a better vaccine came along, which reduced transmission more than the current vaccines, this new vaccine combined with masks and other approaches might again get R below 1, which wipes out the pandemic. 

[Mind]

Not at all. Nothing is as simple as you are trying to make out.

 

If you are a vulnerable person and need protection from COVID, a property fitted N95 mask will provide almost a 100% guarantee that you will not catch COVID, even if you spend the whole week in the same room with an omicron-infected person. 

 

So nobody should be saying that masks are useless, as that might misinform people. If you are a vulnerable person, a mask will work for you.

 

 

 

When delta was around, masks combined other transmission control approaches (like social distancing, lockdowns, etc) kept R below 1, so that in many Asian countries, the pandemic petered out, and for a long time, they prevented the pandemic appearing almost entirely. 

 

When omicron appeared, which is much more contagious than delta, the same transmission control approaches all combined could not quite keep R below 1, so an exponential explosion of cases occurred. Cases will always explode exponentially when R goes above 1.

 

So in this era of omicron, it is no longer easy to totally wipe out the pandemic, as many Asian countries were previously able to do. But that does not mean masks have stopped working. They are working with the same efficacy as before. I just means they are not quite effective enough to keep R below 1 given the increased contagiousness of omicron. 

 

But if for example a better vaccine came along, which reduced transmission more than the current vaccines, this new vaccine combined with masks and other approaches might again get R below 1, which wipes out the pandemic. 

 

So you are saying the masks don't work.

[Mind]

Just another of thousands of examples of politicians flouting the COVID protocols that most of them want to enforce.

[Hip]

So you are saying the masks don't work.

 

Perhaps you have overdosed on low-brow clickbait media and simplistic soundbites, because you seem to want to reduce a dynamic system to a media soundbite.

 

Saying masks don't work on the basis of the omicron data is like saying crash helmets don't work, on the basis of the observation that when a motorbike crashes into a concrete bridge pillar at 100 mph, the helmeted rider does not survive.  

Edited by Hip, 29 December 2022 - 12:22 AM.

[Mind]

The mask mandates didn't stop the spread of COVID anywhere in the world, no matter the variant. During the original waves of COVID we had two RCT studies out of Denmark and Bangladesh that showed hardly any difference between mask and no-mask. Real world data continues to show the mask are not a good pandemic response.

 

How did we go from established science and RCT studies clearly showing that masking would be a poor pandemic response - basically useless - to mask mandates being 100% certain to stop the spread of COVID within a couple of weeks (yes, that is what we were told).

 

Turns out, it seems a very small number of relatively unknown data analysts in the UK were behind the sudden shift from solid science to "masks are great!" (backed by a bunch of poorly-designed studies and mannequins in a lab).

[Hip]

The mask mandates didn't stop the spread of COVID anywhere in the world, no matter the variant. During the original waves of COVID we had two RCT studies out of Denmark and Bangladesh that showed hardly any difference between mask and no-mask. Real world data continues to show the mask are not a good pandemic response.

 

You demonstrated yourself with one of your previous posts that masks + other measures did stop the spread of COVID when we had delta. As you pointed out, there were a lot of Asian countries that used masks religiously and had negligible COVID cases. 

 

Then you pointed out yourself that once omicron came along, these measures could no longer stop the growth of a COVID wave. But the fact that these measures did stop the delta wave proves that they work.    

[Mind]

The R value and motorcycle helmet analogy doesn't make sense to me. The size of the virus was the same, no matter the variant. The masks block all variants the same. It is an aerosolized virus for which most masks were not designed to stop. There were varying mask regulations all over the world. High quality respirator mandates in Germany and Austria, didn't stop any variant.

 

There are a lot of variables to tease out of the data to say whether or not one particular pandemic response was super awesome. What I know is that we were told if we all stayed home for two weeks, the COVID panic would be over, AND if we all washed our hands religiously COVID would be stopped cold, AND if we all stood behind plastic barriers, COVID would end abruptly, AND if we all stood 6 feet apart AND if we all wore masks, COVID would be stopped dead in its tracks, AND if we all got the mRNA injections, it would all be over.

 

None of it worked. It was all an abject failure.

 

We were all told to engage in these unproven measures or the would would end as we know it and there would mass deaths. Sweden, Haiti, Bulgaria, most of Africa, and many other countries have proven this to be false.

[Hip]

The R value and motorcycle helmet analogy doesn't make sense to me. The size of the virus was the same, no matter the variant. The masks block all variants the same. It is an aerosolized virus for which most masks were not designed to stop.  

 

Alright, let me give you another example: take a bullet-proof vest. 

 

You might say, well this person wore a bullet proof vest, but was killed by a bullet fired point blank from a high-powered assault rifle. So you conclude that bullet-proof vests do not work.

 

Obviously that is a false conclusion. Bullet-proof vests do work, but when you get a bullet from gun that is really highly powered, the bullet gets though. But if the same assault rifle had been fired from half a mile away, and the bullet slowed down via this length of travel, then the vest might still protect.

 

It's the same with masks: highly contagious omicron is like an assault rifle bullet. It is more likely to get through the mask if fired point blank (read: someone with COVID sitting next to you). Especially when people do not wear masks properly, But the mask still might protect if that person infected with omicron is further away from you, like with the assault rifle fired from further away.

 

 

 

It's bad science to judge the efficacy of masking by whether it can curb a pandemic. You have to understand exponential growth and decay, and R values, to understand why this is. Masking can fail to prevent a wave of cases, but still protect people to an extent. 

Edited by Hip, 30 December 2022 - 09:32 PM.

[Mind]

I have provided a lot of peer-reviewed RCT evidence and real world data that clearly shows the mask mandates were of no use during the last 3 years.

 

Perhaps you could provide the same for the theory that masks are an effective pandemic response below a certain R value but then a complete failure above that level.

[Hip]

I have provided a lot of peer-reviewed RCT evidence and real world data that clearly shows the mask mandates were of no use during the last 3 years.

 

Perhaps you could provide the same for the theory that masks are an effective pandemic response below a certain R value but then a complete failure above that level.

 

Simply place the following phrase into Google: "evidence efficacy of masks COVID" and read all the search results. 

[Hip]

Perhaps you could provide the same for the theory that masks are an effective pandemic response below a certain R value but then a complete failure above that level.

 

What I was trying to explain with the above bullet proof vest analogy is that masks are still working, even if they do not prevent a wave of cases. 

 

Even when you are killed by a bullet, the bullet proof vest still slows down the bullet. Just not enough to stop it it penetrating your tissues. You have to approach these things with a mathematical perspective. That's the only way to understand exponential growth, or exponential decrease, of a viral outbreak.

 

 

 

Another area where exponential growth and exponential decay occurs is in a nuclear reactor or atom bomb. Every time an atom is split in a nuclear reaction, it throws out some neutrons, and these neutrons are analogous to the virus: they can hit other atoms, and cause those to split too. Which then releases more neutrons, and causes more atoms to split, and very soon you get a runaway nuclear reaction which is exponentially growing, with atoms being split all over the place.

 

In a nuclear reaction, the R number is based on the neutrons: whenever an atom splits, if the neutrons it ejects hit other atoms and cause more than one additional atom to split, then R is greater than 1, and you get a runaway reaction.

 

This exponentially growing nuclear reaction where R is greater than 1 is the basis of the atom bomb, where we actually want to achieve a runaway exponential growth and have all the atoms split, releasing their energy, in order to create a nuclear explosion.

 

But in a nuclear reactor used to generate electricity, we need a more controlled splitting of atoms. That control is achieved by means of carbon rods, which are inserted or removed from the reactor core in order to boost or quell the neutrons. But you never want to have a reactor go above R = 1, otherwise that leads to meltdown, where the reaction gets out of control.

 

So carbon rods are like masks: masks modify how much the virus spreads. The more people who wear masks, the less it spreads. The less people who wear them, the more it spreads.

 

So just like with the reactor, you can control the spreading of the virus with masks and other quelling methods (like social distancing).

 

 

But if you let R go above 1, you will always get an exponential explosion of cases. Exponential system are super-sensitive to R, and will explode if R goes above 1. In the case of a nuclear reaction, you literally get an atomic explosion if R goes above 1.

 

 

So now you can envisage the scenario where with masks, social distancing, etc, we managed to get R just below 1 in some Asian countries. So the outbreak decayed and died out, as happens with all exponential systems when R is less than 1. 

 

But then omicron came along, which was hard to block, and that took R just above 1, which led to the explosion of cases. As you can see, a tiny change in R from just below 1 to just above 1 can make an enormous difference, from a die out of cases to an explosion. Exponential system are super-sensitive to R.

 

But had a few more people worn masks, or worn better N95 masks, then we might have still kept R below 1, even with omicron, and still prevented this explosion of COVID cases. It does not have to be just masks: even something like a daily nasal spray with saline (which is antiviral in the nose) might have been enough to keep R below 1, if employed with masks and other measures.

 

You have to have an appreciation of the dynamics of these exponential systems to get a feel of what is going on in pandemics.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 01 January 2023 - 05:36 PM.