COVID19 Tracking App - would you use one?

[D.W.]

I'm late and in the states, you know, the new epicenter where people are falling like feathers....

....ok, we have covid cases here but the reality is that only those who have occupational exposure and those who frequent bars and gyms are at that much of a chance of getting covid (and those who live with people who match that).

The whole initial "you'll touch it and get it" thing didn't really match the chinese studies or the news about mass exposure (in an enclosed environment with high viral load, like the early nursing homes, or at bars and parties) or how the progression (best off if low infection that eventually progresses to the lungs, worst breathing a lot, presumably because the bits go far into the lungs and there's less time for peoples' bodies to perfect an attack).

That said, I have asthma, supposedly that makes me at risk - if I had exposure potential, I would use a tracking app *as a courtesy to other people*.

If anyone is naive enough to think that their phone vendors aren't connecting identifiable location data to them and anyone they're with and selling it to someone else (including the government when the government has a need), they're completely in the weeds. The data is valuable and this just is - the whole setup is so far ahead of the legislative process that there's no reason to worry about privacy. you give that up with the phones and become a mark when getting upset about it and thinking that a later apology clears everything up (when it just lubricates everyone past the issue).

I'm sure we have some loony tunes here in the states who would get in a fistfight over the idea of a tracking app, but the same people would check their email and make sure they had their phone with them while fleeing the scene.

[Fekit]

when it just lubricates everyone past the issue

That's an excellent expression, never heard it before, hope you don't mind me borrowing it.

[poundy]

@DW, I wouldn't understate the community infection like your words seem to imply. The current state of affairs in Victoria has come about through casual acquaintances of work colleagues, and social distancing not being considered important. The story we're hearing is that people sharing a cigarette break and sharing lighters were sufficient to pass this on. Hardly a party, a bar, or a nursing home. Sorry to be blunt, but your mis-informed statement is not what the AU medical profession want us to behave like, otherwise we will also get out of control community transmission.

[markharrison]

The whole initial "you'll touch it and get it" thing didn't really match the chinese studies or the news about mass exposure (in an enclosed environment with high viral load, like the early nursing homes, or at bars and parties) or how the progression (best off if low infection that eventually progresses to the lungs, worst breathing a lot, presumably because the bits go far into the lungs and there's less time for peoples' bodies to perfect an attack).

There is a new consensus (as in the past few days) from researchers that this is actually airborne. Which would explain a lot of the unknown infections origins.

... I would use a tracking app *as a courtesy to other people*.

And that there is the nub of the problem of modern life. Courtesy and consideration are now considered by a significant portion of people to be quaint and old-fashioned. Maybe that was always true and we didn't notice before social media...

If anyone is naive enough to think that their phone vendors aren't connecting identifiable location data to them and anyone they're with and selling it to someone else (including the government when the government has a need), they're completely in the weeds. The data is valuable and this just is - the whole setup is so far ahead of the legislative process that there's no reason to worry about privacy.

You can roughly triangulate approximate proximity from cell tower data. It is several order of magnitude more difficult though and not as precise. This is an area I have expertise in.

I'm sure we have some loony tunes here in the states who would get in a fistfight over the idea of a tracking app, but the same people would check their email and make sure they had their phone with them while fleeing the scene.

Don't worry, we have them too. Ignorance has never been a hindrance to strongly held opinions anywhere! At least now we have a name for it: The Dunning-Kreuger Effect.

[D.W.]

@DW, I wouldn't understate the community infection like your words seem to imply. The current state of affairs in Victoria has come about through casual acquaintances of work colleagues, and social distancing not being considered important. The story we're hearing is that people sharing a cigarette break and sharing lighters were sufficient to pass this on. Hardly a party, a bar, or a nursing home. Sorry to be blunt, but your mis-informed statement is not what the AU medical profession want us to behave like, otherwise we will also get out of control community transmission.

I think you need to be a bit more selective about determining what's likely vs. what's possible, but it's not up to me what you determine is worth your while - it's up to you. Respiratory viruses are most easily passed by breathing droplets with the virus in them. The initial scare stories about aerosolization are based on being able to find the virus. I'm sure when you fart, there's virus (not you, specifically), just as they were able to find viable virus on a cruise ship in CA 17 days after it was unboarded (whatever the right word is for that). The issue isn't whether or not the virus is there, but is it there in such a way that we are likely to contract.

your cigarette example is two-pronged - how close are you smoking cigarettes, is someone coughing or is it windy? If you are sitting on a bench somewhere and you both continue to clear your throats while smoking, that seems dumb, but it can do the very thing that's not debatable - toss droplets into the air, from one person to another. Would you share a cigarette? I sure hope not, so let's put that one out. If you're outside with a friend and there's a breeze, I doubt you'll ever be able to get a significant enough amount to be dosed.

I have not participated in the wiping down mail stuff or any of that other nonsense - I read studies on the NIH website here in the states (many from China, but they did an excellent job below the surface of politics of providing good study information). I paid attention to the cases where a large percentage became very sick (that's what you want to avoid). It was always inside somewhere that someone could get a significant viral load in an enclosed space.

I mentioned above why this is important to me. It was unclear how much of a risk factor asthma was, and there was a lot of intentional misinformation by the government (don't buy toilet paper, diarrhea isn't a symptom - yet chinese study information showed that it was a symptom about 50% of the time, you don't need n95 masks and they shouldn't be publicly available - well, the viral particles are. 07 to .09 micron in size. How big are the droplets? i don't know. If they're telling us at the time that it could be aerosolized and not just droplet transmissions, they're also advocating that we should essentially make a bucket out of 1" screen to hold sand.

The whole 6 foot thing is easy to communicate to people. When you're inside, it's not adequate. When you're outside and just passing people casually, it's probably not necessary at all.

Why aren't things communicated so? The government (yours included) has no real requirement to give you precise information.

What did ours do? They came out later and said they lied about the masks to protect health care professionals. I knew that's what they were doing. Then, they followed up to say that they thought transmission by touching mail and purchased items was very unlikely, and now the sentiment seems to be coming forward here that it's almost entirely transferred from one person to another in enclosed spaces by breathing, not touching. Again, what's likely, not what's possible. If 1% of the transmission is by touching and 99% by breathing, I know where I'm spending my time.

One more-follow-up comment. We never had high viral numbers here (pittsburgh) early on. We shut down early, and the spreading points for the virus were either areas with lots of travel from china (california, the west coast) or europe (NYC tourism, i'm sure there was euro and chinese travel there). That makes us ripe for the second wave. About a month ago we reopened bars. I told my wife that I will not go to a bar or sit in a restaurant because the second wave will come from younger people in bars and people who go to restaurants. If the restaurant is outside, then i'd be OK with that. The virus survives only a couple of hours at the very most out side and if it's on a surface, the issue is simple - I don't get a big dose of it in my nose, mouth or eyes. Not difficult.

So, we have a second wave here now. Double the case count that we had before. Median age this time, 31. That wasn't hard to figure out. I wear a cloth mask here in situations where it's legally required, but many of those aren't likely for transmission. If you get food at a drive through here, you must wear a mask. Transmission is extremely unlikely, but it's the law. I'll make fun of it. I will not frequent elevators somewhere that there is a high infection rate. The CDC suggests no more than 3 people in an elevator at one time, and people should stand in corners to be 6 feet apart. This is sheer stupidity. We are told that we should sanitize our fingers (elevator buttons) and the subject of a tiny space that could be filled with droplets for a very long time (and you'd never see nor near the person who coughed or sneezed them) doesn't come up.

The problem with understanding this for many is that it's become regional and political. That's dumb. Politics doesn't solve problems. Politics uses problems. I solve problems for a living - I can find a better answer than the government's general guidelines.

Think about the drug study info. Chloroquine - half of the country here likes it, half hates it. Because of politics. It has a small statistically non-significant benefit. In my mind, it's not worth getting concerned over either way. Any treatment that is materially beneficial would show significance. The next wonder something or other, remdesivir - the Chinese did studies along with chloroquine. Again, no significant benefit. Initial studies here, no benefit. When it became politically popular to find an alternative to Chloroquine (which probably served mostly as placebo), then suddenly, remdesivir ignores a bunch of previous studies, they claim to have found a weak positive effect (again, not statistically significant) and suddenly, it's "how long until this drug is available?"

I believe that people would make a request to their doctors (and even some ground level docs will prescribe) based on their political views. That's stupid.

[D.W.]

That's an excellent expression, never heard it before, hope you don't mind me borrowing it.

I made it up, but as with everything you make up, i doubt someone else hasn't made it up, too.

It's a description I came up with talking with an attorney colleague of mine (she's an attorney, i'm an actuary). She was frustrated with her husband (nuke-engineer) who she mentioned to me was inconsistent and she was always catching him making statements that conflicted with another statement that he'd made earlier. She and I are probably a big aspergergy (literal, well grab on to things like a bulldog and try to compare and solve -we've had that discussion also). I asked her what her husband's reaction was when she pointed out his inconsistency and said "I'll bet he looks less like he was caught and more like he's been inconvenienced".

??? was her response.

As someone who is probably "a bit aspergery" I notice patterns. I notice that otherwise competent people are either lazy or unintentionally (the latter) loose with their own explanations to lubricate themselves through a situation. Something comes up that may potentially cause a fight? The wagon wheels come to a halt. Lubricate the conversation with a little white lie and expect that either the person who you're talking to won't question it, or they will recognize that you're being misleading on purpose to lubricate the wheels and roll past the problem.

There's an implied request for courtesy in this case, too - I'm sure her husband was misdirecting or shifting the conversation around to let her know that he wasn't interested in arguing. She hadn't considered it because he's taking in some bad habits (think increasing alcohol consumption, increasing interest in partisan politics and creating simplistic arguments to explain away who is responsible for his issues), and said "huh........now I feel a little less good about humanity".

I suggested she watch her colleagues, who can otherwise write tight legal arguments, but at least some of them will pee her off by not being truthful. She thinks they're intermittently incompetent. Now she knows that they're selectively incompetent.

They have the oil can to lubricate the wheels when the conversation could come to a halt in a bad place.

More info than you probably wanted, but you can spread the use of my pet term

(governments do this all the time, of course. Provide simplified guidelines, partial explanations, etc, and so do opinion articles and media writers - it's just a lot easier than being as precise as you possibly can because that often doesn't help your case).

[BobL]

well, the viral particles are. 07 to .09 micron in size. How big are the droplets? i don't know. If they're telling us at the time that it could be aerosolized and not just droplet transmissions, they're also advocating that we should essentially make a bucket out of 1" screen to hold sand.

1) Unless working in an enclosed/unventilated space with heavily infected persons, lone viral particles are relatively rare and have a shorter lifetime in air than if they are in water droplet or aerosol. For someone over 90 with serious health complications a lone virus can possibly cause a problem. If you are 20 something with a robust immune system then you can probably tolerate exposure to a large viral load without any problems.

2) The smaller a particle is, the less likely it is to make contact with a respiratory tract surface on the way in and the more likely it is to be breathed out again.
On the way out, viruses are more likely to attach themselves to drops and aerosols. This means they slightly more likely to make contact with respiratory tract surfaces and more importantly be filtered so the virus sits on the inside of the mask. If the wearer is working in a high viral load area for some time, a significant viral load can then build up on the inside of the mask - this is another reason why they should not be used for too long.

3) The greatest viral loads will usually be on the largest droplets which will be mostly filtered out by even basic face coverings.

4) Viral loads on smaller (aerosols) particles will usually depends on aerosol size but most aerosols will easily filtered by P2/N95 masks.

5) P2 and N95 masks will filter considerable amounts of even <0.1 micron aerosols. They usually perform significant better than their minimum rating (95% at 0.3 microns) and the longer they are are worn, the more they clog up and the finer they filter. I have measured P2 filters with 99.8% filtration at 0.3 microns

6) P3 masks are rated for 99.97% at 0.3 micron - these also filter 99.97% at 0.2 microns and continue to perform very efficiently even at <0.1 microns.

7) The real effectiveness issue for masks is not the filter media efficiency but the reliability of the fit. This is why full face respirators are (or should be) used in COVID wards.

Some of my testing results are here
https://www.woodworkforums.com/f200/.../3#post2188384

[A Duke]

I should be O K. Norton has just renewed my 360 anti-virus.

[poundy]

I should be O K. Norton has just renewed my 360 anti-virus.

friends don't let friends pay symantec for products they don't need. Defender will also protect you and is free.

[A Duke]

friends don't let friends pay symantec for products they don't need. Defender will also protect you and is free.

Hi,
I am still running Vista, not 10.
But thanks for your concern.
Regards

[poundy]

Hi,
I am still running Vista, not 10.
But thanks for your concern.
Regards

ok, that's actually a bigger issue that I'd pay attention to. There are no security updates at all for that platform, so you really are dodging the bad guys. One malware loaded ad on a website could jeopardise everything you do. If your hardware is capable and you need a hand with the upgrade, don't hesitate to ping me. I'm formerly a Microsoft employee but please don't hold that against me

[D.W.]

Hi,
I am still running Vista, not 10.
But thanks for your concern.
Regards

if you keep it long enough, it'll be too old for anyone to be interested in writing viruses for it. Then it'll really be ideal!

[D.W.]

1) Unless working in an enclosed/unventilated space with heavily infected persons, lone viral particles are relatively rare and have a shorter lifetime in air than if they are in water droplet or aerosol. For someone over 90 with serious health complications a lone virus can possibly cause a problem. If you are 20 something with a robust immune system then you can probably tolerate exposure to a large viral load without any problems.

2) The smaller a particle is, the less likely it is to make contact with a respiratory tract surface on the way in and the more likely it is to be breathed out again.
On the way out, viruses are more likely to attach themselves to drops and aerosols. This means they slightly more likely to make contact with respiratory tract surfaces and more importantly be filtered so the virus sits on the inside of the mask. If the wearer is working in a high viral load area for some time, a significant viral load can then build up on the inside of the mask - this is another reason why they should not be used for too long.

3) The greatest viral loads will usually be on the largest droplets which will be mostly filtered out by even basic face coverings.

4) Viral loads on smaller (aerosols) particles will usually depends on aerosol size but most aerosols will easily filtered by P2/N95 masks.

5) P2 and N95 masks will filter considerable amounts of even <0.1 micron aerosols. They usually perform significant better than their minimum rating (95% at 0.3 microns) and the longer they are are worn, the more they clog up and the finer they filter. I have measured P2 filters with 99.8% filtration at 0.3 microns

6) P3 masks are rated for 99.97% at 0.3 micron - these also filter 99.97% at 0.2 microns and continue to perform very efficiently even at <0.1 microns.

7) The real effectiveness issue for masks is not the filter media efficiency but the reliability of the fit. This is why full face respirators are (or should be) used in COVID wards.

Some of my testing results are here
https://www.woodworkforums.com/f200/.../3#post2188384

Somewhere around a month ago, there was a chart going around in the news (not sure who published it) that suggested that transmission chance with one person wearing a cloth mask (instead of none) was reduced by about 2/3rds. Both mask wearing and the chance of transmission would drop to 10% of no mask wearing.

That's OK (better than nothing), but it doesn't cut it for someone at risk.

There's the sieve issue, and the other issue of fitting. There's no real way to get most of the cloth masks to seal, so you're stuck guessing whether or not your particular mask is doing anything.

I do as they suggest and wear a cloth mask. I'd wear n95 masks if I could get them reasonable, but that's not the situation here. I'd be a bit less annoyed if the government had been honest from the outset -instead, you'd see people rolling around in wheelchairs with loose fitting cloth masks here. I'd forgo the n95 stuff entirely if there could be some system-wide honesty about getting the better masks on the high risk individuals - but instead we got a public message "anything for a a mask is fine" to eliminate bidding against the health system. and then the states and health systems started bidding against each other here.

My wife works in a wound care practice. They prioritized masks at first to the ER and ICU (of course, this is reasonable). Then, they banned practitioners in any other area in the hospital from wearing an n95 mask because it could confuse other practitioners (when this broke out, many of the nurses and therapists are married to tradesmen and hobbyists and headed to work with n95 masks. They were told to take them off, even if they were theirs, or face discipline or possible termination). That's part of being an employee - it's a stupid rule, but businesses often demand employees follow stupid rules, sometimes unsafe.

Now, the rule at work is that they must wear a mask, it can be anything, but the employee has to supply their own. The hospital will provide one paper mask per week to supplement, but the paper mask can only be worn for one day.

[BobL]

Somewhere around a month ago, there was a chart going around in the news (not sure who published it) that suggested that transmission chance with one person wearing a cloth mask (instead of none) was reduced by about 2/3rds. Both mask wearing and the chance of transmission would drop to 10% of no mask wearing.

That's based mainly on the efficiency on the average cloth mask media but there's a lot more to it that this,

There's the sieve issue, and the other issue of fitting. There's no real way to get most of the cloth masks to seal, so you're stuck guessing whether or not your particular mask is doing anything.

Fitting issues lead to masks having two efficiencies - one is efficiency with respect to inhaled air, which tends to push the mask onto the wearers face. The other is when exhaling which tends to push the mask away from the wearer. Hence the efficiency is usually better for inhaling than exhaling.

A related effect is the restrictiveness of media. The media used in cheaper masks and some cloth masks can be quite restrictive this results in more leaks (lower efficiency) especially on exhaling. Because of this some masks manufacturers fit masks with an exhaling valve - this is fine for woodworkers but not so good for COVID transmission.

As the average cloth mask is usually not that restrictive, fitting turns out to be less of an issue than for higher filtration efficiency masks that use restrictive media and are ill fitting to the user.

This is why in critical situations it is important to use masks that are made and tested to a known standard (for restrictiveness and efficiency)

Now, the rule at work is that they must wear a mask, it can be anything, but the employee has to supply their own. The hospital will provide one paper mask per week to supplement, but the paper mask can only be worn for one day.

Sadly this looks like third world stuff.

I visited my dentist recently and was pleased to see he and all his employees wearing high end surgical masks. He has increased the ventilation through his rooms and he used dedicated aerosol extractor while working on my teeth Aerosol Extractor

[cava]

Pity the POLL is closed, as it would be interesting to assess the change in people’s opine the longer this thing drags on.