Consulting a couple of medics about this, they seem to be as much in the dark about this and just use what they are given.
With no hand-sanitizing gel available anywhere, use methylated spirits or isopropal alchohol, decanted into a small bottle , to reduce any fire hazard, when used in public places. My attempts at gelling meths just ended up with snot/slime.
Converting a one-way valve-type dust mask , with strong cords around the back of the head. Cover the outer surface with micro-fibre cloth that you can spray coronavirus-specific disinfectant to. To hold the cloth in place:10 mm /3/8 inch silicone sleeving, length of the periphery. Cut axially and staple the join, the bit of overlap giving just the stretch to hold in place and pull out the ruckles from curving the sleeving.
Converting over-the-specs type of basic plastic goggles to a closer fit. Again the same sleeving. With a slivver of wood or something pushed along inside the sleeving , punch a line of holes. Then lines of hotmelt glue along the goggles edges, squashing the sleeving onto the glue, some of it splurging thru the holes for holding the silicone in place.
Any other idea?
As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try to get going again?
Ignor ethe sig, cancelled for the duration, like all the other local scicafs, talks series, repair cafes and similar presumably
--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN. b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus. c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the healthcare in frastructure. d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill. e) But, again, not stop the spread.
As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction, must b e at/over 60%. And it does not take much.
As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from spreading t he disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets. Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider exactly how a mask will sc reen it out of the air you are breathing. Similarly, goggles.
Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and sealed . Short of that, never mind.
So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary travel, eat well.
The local hospital has a very large medical electronics department who keep all the kit running with specialist engineers in various modalities. In the anaesthetics department they have a museum/store of old kit which includes anaesthetic and ICU variants of ventilator. I would suspect that equipment is being serviced as we speak. In the past, excesses of redundant equipment like this would go to 'the Third World' and vets.
So an Emergency Powers Act government requisition of all large-animal ventillators from vets would make more sense than building new from a currently next to zero manufacturing base, a concept put out to the UK media.
--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
I doubt that obsolete equipment will be allowed to be put back into serv ice. Once the OEM stops supporting it, They cant be insured. Unless the UK system is extremely shoddy, they will not allow it to be used anywhere othe r than on a movie or TV sound stage. I have personally scraped thousands of pieces of medical electronics that all had a 1/4" hole drilled through the case and the man PC board. It is a process called 'Certified Destruction'.
Two doors down from my office was a Medical Maintenance shop that served tw o major acute care hospitals, Hahnemann University Hospital, in which basem ent it was, and St. Christopher's Hospital for Children that sent all its e quipment over for servicing. Hahnemann is now closed, and the shop moved ov er to St. Chris. As Michael suggests, obsolete stuff was obsolete stuff. It would either be sold to 3rd-world nations for a nominal sum (typically, $1 .00 per container load) or sent to a crushing yard with a paper-trail. Eith er method got it 'off the books' for insurance purposes.
I am in an interesting position. Drexel still has a medical school (on hiat us) that is my client, but the hospital is largely a ghost town - and COVID
19 is not changing that. I am on orders from my company and owner to work f rom home when at all possible - not always the case. But, I have access to hand-sanitzer in bulk, toilet paper in bulk, and whatever sorts of other ap paratus I might want. But, common sense, clean hands and no hugging strange rs about covers it.
So all the health professionals helping to treat Covid-19 are complaining about a shortage of masks because they don't want to infect patients? I don't think I've heard so much nonsense from "experts" on TV about use of masks. So this page is a waste of time? . I just expand its use to other situations - if you are out in the street and pass someone coughing, would not think you might have been better off wearing a mask? Anyway, the sort of mask shown in that webpage looks to me like a P1, and a P3 (possibly N95 in the USA?) will be much more effective.
You get idiotic information such as here: . Quote "A more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2. The respirator is thicker than a surgical mask, but neither Schaffner nor the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) recommend it for public use, at least not at this point." Why not? "That's because, in part, it's challenging to put on these masks and wear them for long periods of time, he said." Junk, as later it's stated "Could they be of some use? Yes, but the effect is likely to be modest," Schaffner said." If they can be of
*some* use, they should be used in the current situation. Anything that helps to cut down transmission is better than nothing.
Of course a mask won't stop a particle the size of a virus, but who said most particles coughed out are virus sized? In influenza, most particles coughed out were in the 0.35 - 10 micron size (). Most of these would be caught by a decent mask.
And why do you think goggles won't help? Even ordinary glasses will help a little by stopping particles going directly onto the eye. Close-fitting goggles would be a lot better.
If you don;t want to use any PPE, fine, but don't recommend it to others.
No argument there, except I would use "stop" instead of "limit". If it's unnecessary, why do it at all?
One consideration is the gelling agent must reduce the alcohol content proportion.
Part of my mask design is the outer micro-fibre cloth , as used for only an hour is damp, from the disinfectant spray, which I assume is better at trapping aerosols than dry. A functional note, the loop of silicone sleeving requires 4 small thin C-clips to reliably hold the cloth around the underlying dust mask. I sliced up some crimp connector plastic sheathing.
--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
I think there is some misconception about the need for it to be a gel. Of course, a gel stays on the hand for longer, but really even a non-viscous solution will do the job if you make sure you wipe all your hands' surfaces carefully. I make my own; see final line here:
That sounds sensible. Anything which adds to the effectiveness of a mask is worthwhile.
You might also want to consider close-fitting googles (see Screwfix ones which hold on with an elasticated band around the back of the head - not one which uses ear bars).
OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:
a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if tha t total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubatio n period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up a gainst the vaccine development time-line.
b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are n ot intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.
c) Nothing short of an effective virus will actually 'stop' the disease, an d that is no less than a year away.
d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effecti ve and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).
e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordin ary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bi t longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, wit h the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' so me period of time went by.
f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has be en suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wea rer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.
g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as m icro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.
So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears san itizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nai ling Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not . Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *toge ther* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every re sponse created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a gla nce out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.
Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effective ness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining. Pl ease.
Where does the doseage effect come into play? Where a medic , despite normal PPE practices, gets infected, it seems to be more acute in its effect, presumably because ne/she has had multiple sources of infection over days and weeks. If that is the case, then on the other end of the scale, any reduction of the doseage to a joe-public person rarely coming into contact with the virus, would be advantageous, ie reducing the doseage, perhaps redusing the degree of any infection.
--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incub ation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.
re not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.
, and that is no less than a year away.
ective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).
rdinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Pleas e do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because ' some period of time went by.
s been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.
as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.
sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower w hen home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease wit h a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate * together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Ever y response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.
tiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincer ely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining . Please.
I wondered the exact same thing when I first read of the Chinese doctor who died of Covid19 despite being young and otherwise healthy.
Others have reported the effect being like a cold or even less, so it makes me wonder if the level of exposure is like having a single trooper stormin g a barricade, or thousands.
Worse, it's speculated that those that have recovered from Covid19 are not immune from reinfection.
It will be interesting to see how much the mortality rate drops, when antibody testing of the more general public comes in and all the minor cases are addid in. I know someone in the UK who probably had "atypical" Covid19, he just put down to food poisoning and ordinary flu, not the pandemic.
Mid Feb 2020 an extended period of disabling dry coughing. Because of the early date and no fever/temperature/tiredness or headaches , he dismissed it. Also about 3 days before he'd serious diarrhoea, intense tiredness and nausea for a day but not actually vomiting, eating next to nothing, put down to food poisoning as no other symptoms. He could not think of a source of such poisoning though, as totally normal food consumption. About 2 clear days between the "food poisoning" and the unremitting coughing,so assumed it was separate issues. Now there is more detailed symptomology out there, there is such as this.
formatting link
Early symptoms could also include diarrhoea
The new study also found that patients who ended up in the ICU had more abdominal pain and appetite loss than patients with milder coronavirus cases.
The researchers noted some early, "atypical" symptoms as well: They found that 14 patients developed diarrhoea and nausea one to two days before their fever or difficulty breathing set in.
This might suggest another way the virus is spreading. According to the study, one patient with abdominal symptoms was sent to the surgical department, since the symptoms didn't align with typical coronavirus cases.
That person went on to infect at least four other hospitalised patients ? all of whom showed "atypical abdominal symptoms" as well ? and at least 10 healthcare workers.
--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
Facts? Let's have some links to what you are stating. Surely that's not too much to ask.
Even total isolation won't stop COVID-19 if there are asymptomatic carriers. Unless, of course, you are proposing we live out the rest of our time as hermits. So your argument is nonsense as well as spurious. See my reply to (c).
I suppose a posting full of junk will have one correct statement in it.
Bullshit. There are many compounds, already used as medicinal agents in other conditions, which in early testing appear to have antiviral efficacy against coronavirus. It's about time medical science grabbed the bull by the horns and started throwing every compound we have against viruses which have no vaccine, while we try to develop one. Don't forget that there is no usefully effective vaccine against HIV, but the virus has been rendered much less of a threat by a mixture of antiviral chemicals. We really should be doing this with new viruses which appear out of the blue, and perhaps with all viruses which might be considered a threat to human health in future. A vaccine is a year away; we should therefore try anything which can treat this virus while we are waiting for it.
See above. If you are dying from Covid-19, side-effects are the least of your worries. And how do you know they are "not very effective" if they have yet to be tested in a properly run trial?
Weeks? Stop spreading FUD. "New coronavirus stable for hours on surfaces" At worse, it was a few days: "The scientists found that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
2 (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in aerosols for up to three hours, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel."
If you are wearing a mask and cough, most of the particles will be caught by the mask. If you have no mask, see comment under (g) to get an idea of how many particles could be spread. As I pointed out in my first reply, particles of the size in (g) will get caught by a good mask. People need to be shown how to use a decent (N95) mask, although anything is better than nothing at helping stop spreading particles.
We are talking about coughing, not sneezing, with COVID-19. There appears to be some difference between them in dissemination of droplets: "Published data have suggested that sneezing may produce as many as 40
000 droplets between 0.5?12 ?m in diameter that may be expelled at speeds up to 100 m/s, whereas coughing may produce up to 3000 droplet nuclei, about the same number as talking for five minutes. Despite the variety in size, large droplets comprise most of the total volume of expelled respiratory droplets. Further data on the behaviour of droplet dispersion in naturally generated aerosols are needed."
Note: "Despite the variety in size, *large droplets* (my emphasis) comprise most of the total volume of expelled respiratory droplets."
I could not find a reasonable reference to the time expelled particles stay suspended in air.
Nonsense. A typical flippant response from a troll. I've provided a link to an good source on the use of masks (WHO)
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate
*together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear
More flippant trolling for a very serious subject.
You should try following your own advice, troll. I have provided references from recognised sources. Where are yours?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.