[nudephil (OP)]

Another coronavirus query - this one's from Kathy:

Given Chris's previous comments on the efficacy of face masks in protecting from the virus, and in the unavailability anyway, would we not be better advised to cover our faces with a scarf or similar fabric item?

[set fair]

Yes and homemade masks are fine too.

[Bored chemist]

Yes and homemade masks are fine too.

And your credentials are...?

[Bored chemist]

Given Chris's previous comments on the efficacy of face masks in protecting from the virus, and in the unavailability anyway, would we not be better advised to cover our faces with a scarf or similar fabric item?

Clearly the best thing to cover your face with is a house.
Stay home.

If you can't do that, it's not clear that a scarf is much use.
There's a clear risk that people will think "Oh, it's OK, I have a mask" and lull themselves into a false sense of security.
Is a mask better than nothing?
Probably.
Should you wear one- that's debatable since others  might think "it's OK he has a mask" without taking account of teh fact that it's damned uncomfortable so he's taking it on and off every 5 minutes.

Is it a question that you should hope to answer from a random web page...
How about "no"?

[Edwina Lee]

There are 2 big questions that looms.
[1] Viral load - at the beginning of the panademic, a lot of medics treating the patients got ill both in China & Italy for example. Lacking sufficient PPEs & knowledge of how infectious it was.  Many died. It was suggested that medics received high viral load  which caused serious infection & death.   By having better PPEs, the viral load should be greatly reduced, and hence serious infection and death should be reduced;

[2] I keep seeing expert claims that face masks are ineffective. I remember the 1st SARS when the NHS wheeled out a UK expert on BBC to belittle the wearing of masks, and the same again with SARS2. It all seemed to stem from static air laboratory experiments of how far droplets travel in a sneeze and what proportion of droplets a face mask can block. 
I see this as a flaw in thought that ineffective means 100% blocking, hence ignoring the quantity of viral load.

[alancalverd]

Said it before, but apparently I have to say it again.

Anything that attenuates aerosol droplets is better than nothing, provided that it is clean, i.e. not already loaded with potent virus.

Any mask you wear will afford some protection to others, but to protect yourself it needs to be close fitting so that you can't inhale directly around it.

The traditional woollen college scarf is long enough to be wound round the face a couple of times and thick enough to trap a fair amount of gunge.

A burqa worn with a full niqab, goggles and gloves comes pretty close to a HAZMAT suit, but I gather it is illegal to cover your face in France unless you are policing a peaceful assembly of citizens, in which case you can be completely anonymous and as sadistic as the mood takes you.

[set fair]

There are 2 big questions that looms.
It was suggested that medics received high viral load  which caused serious infection & death.   

Yes you will hear this, even from self-proclaimed experts. The 'viral load', strictly, refers to the amount of virus a patient has in their body - not the initial dose they receive, which is the innoculum.

[Colin2B]

Yes you will hear this, even from self-proclaimed experts. The 'viral load', strictly, refers to the amount of virus a patient has in their body - not the initial dose they receive, which is the innoculum.

That is true.
There is, however, a recognition that the amount of exposure to the virus and particularly how deep it gets into the lungs results in a greater viral load and subsequent seriousness of the infection. This is separate from the effects of other factors such as obesity.

@chris did comment on this very early in the pandemic.

[Edwina Lee]

There are 2 big questions that looms.
It was suggested that medics received high viral load  which caused serious infection & death.   

Yes you will hear this, even from self-proclaimed experts. The 'viral load', strictly, refers to the amount of virus a patient has in their body - not the initial dose they receive, which is the innoculum.

In news articles for the public, viral load means quantity of viral innoculum.
It was known very early on, that there are 2 main receptor sites for the virus : the throat and deep inside the lungs.
Viral innoculum of the throat would tend to result in a milder infection, whereas innoculum in the lungs tend to get hidden for a long time and also tend to result in more serious infection.

If the viral load is the quantity of virus in the body, then it is a function of time mainly governed by the rate of reproduction and the effectiveness of defence.

[alancalverd]

In news articles for the public, viral load means quantity of viral innoculum.

That's awful. It's like saying your bank balance means your weekly wage, or there's no point in planting seeds because you won't harvest more than you plant.

Who writes such misleading rubbish? The Daily Mail is not a peer-reviewed medical journal!

[Edwina Lee]

These doctors explain it very well:-  Masks and effect of quantity of inoculum
https://www.facebook.com/ZDoggMD/videos/2627826200866251/

[alancalverd]

covid types.jpg (31.65 kB . 700x700 - viewed 612 times)


God help America.