COVID-19 and States, Lives and Jobs

In reference to the below COVID-19 graph of loss of life and jobs (per capita), someone wrote to us that the, “Lower left would appear better [i.e., more people alive and working. BDS]. Iowa was slightly lower left, but mostly in the center of all states. Hawaii had lowest excess death rate (negative), but highest job loss. West Virginia, Maine, and Indiana were well balanced.” The graph is from Hamilton Place Strategies. It is included with their brief data analysis as presented in the recent (4/18/21) article, 50 States, 50 Pandemic Responses: An Analysis Of Jobs Lost And Lives Lost, co-authored by Matt McDonald, Stratton Kirton, Matisse Rogers, and Johnny Luo. The time period for the data is unstated, which could make a difference. That aside, most of the states clump near the center; although more states tended toward higher death toll; but, of course, it’s the outliers in the four quadrants that grab one’s attention.

We didn’t initially give it much careful thought, even though such data does make one curious about what it represents, beyond some seemingly obvious observations. Here was our initial off-the-cuff response: “It maybe should be unsurprising that the most populated states struggled the most with finding a balance or, in some cases, keeping either low.” That was tossed out as a casual comment and it was assumed no explanation was necessary. But apparently it was perceived as surprising (or speculative or something) to our collocutor who asked, “Why?” This seems to happen to us a lot, in that we are so used to looking at data that we assume background knowledge and understanding that others don’t always share. It genuinely was not surprising to us, in that ‘populated’ clearly signifies particular kinds of factors and conditions. Once committed to the dialogue, we felt compelled to answer and explain. Continue further down, if you wish to see the unpacking of background info and social context that, once known, makes the graphed data appear well within the range of what might be expected.

It seemed unsurprising to us, as we’ve looked at a lot of analysis of (demographic, economic, and social science) data like this over the years. So, we’re familiar with the kinds of patterns that tend to show up and probable explanations for those patterns. But maybe it seems less intuitively obvious to others (or maybe we’re biased in our views; you can be the judge). In the original article, the authors do note some relevant correlations indicating causal factors: “States with major hospitality and tourism sectors were hit hard in terms of job loss, with the impact falling unevenly across sectors. And states that were in the first wave of infections—when the healthcare system was still learning how to treat COVID-19—fared comparatively worse on their death tolls. New York, which falls into both categories, had the worst overall outcome, with both high excess deaths and high job losses.”

The authors go on to say, “The states that emerged in the best position were Idaho, Utah, and West Virginia, all with some combination of low loss of life and low loss of employment.” Others that did reasonably well were North Carolina, Nebraska, Maine, West Virginia, Indiana, and Wyoming. I don’t recall any of these being hit early by COVID-19 outbreaks nor are they major tourist and travel destinations, other than NC to some extent. It could also be noted that all are largely rural states, if not as rural as they were last century, but still way more rurally populated (or rather less urbanized with fewer big cities and metropolitan areas) than states that had it rough in soaring death and jobless rates: New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, etc. It comes down to a divide between more and less urbanized, and hence more and less populated and dense. That has much to do with the historical economic base that determined how many people, over the generations, have moved to a state and determined their residential location.

As for the really obvious observations, there is the typical clear divide between North and South. Many liberty-minded Southern states, with historically high rates of total mortality and work-related mortality (along with historically overlapping classism and racism), were tolerant of sacrificing the lives of disproportionately non-white workers during a pandemic, particularly when it kept the economy going and maintained corporate profits for a mostly white capitalist class (see: Their Liberty and Your Death). ln general, all of the Deep South and Southwest states, along with most of the Upper South states, had above average death tolls (with MS, AL, AZ, and SC leading the pack); whether or not they kept job losses low, although they did mostly keep them down. All of the states that sacrificed jobs to save lives are in the North (AK, RI, MN, MA, etc) or otherwise not in the South (HI), be it caused by intentional policy prioritization or other uncontrollable factors (e.g., reduced tourism). Northern industrial states, as expected, took the biggest economic hit.

As for the initial point we made, larger populations that are more concentrated create the perfect storm of conditions for promoting the spread of contagious diseases. This represents numerous factors that, though any single factor might not be problematic, when all factors are taken together could overwhelm the system during a large-scale and/or long-term crisis. That typically describes states with large cities and metropolitan areas. Look at all of the highly populated and urbanized states and, no matter what region they’re in, they are all near the top of excess deaths per capita. None of them managed to balance keeping people alive and employed, though some did relatively less worse. And it is apparent that the worst among them had the highest population density. That last factor might be the most central.

For comparison, here is the land area, population, and population density of the top 6 largest US cities, all in different states: New York City (301.5 sq mi; 8,336,817; 28,317/sq mi), Los Angeles (468.7 sq mi; 3,979,576; 8,484/sq mi), Chicago (227.3 sq mi; 2,693,976; 11,900/sq mi), Houston (637.5 sq mi; 2,320,268; 3,613/sq mi), Phoenix (517.6 sq mi; 1,680,992; 3,120/sq mi), and Philadelphia (134.2 sq mi; 1,584,064; 11,683/sq mi). New York City has about half the land as Houston and Phoenix, but has about four times the population of Houston and about seven times the population of Phoenix. So, even among the largest cities in the US and the world, there are immense differences in population density. States like Texas and Arizona have encouraged urban sprawl which, though horrible for environmental health, does ease the pressure of contagious disease spread.

This particular pattern of public health problems is seen all the way back to the first era of urbanization with the agricultural revolution when populations were concentrating, not sprawling. It wasn’t merely the nutritional deficiencies and such from change in the agricultural diet. The close proximity of humans to each other and to non-human animals allowed diseases to mutate more quickly and spread more easily (a similar probable reason for COVID-19 having originated in China with wilderness encroachment, habitat destruction, and wild meat markets). Many new diseases appeared with the rise of agricultural civilizations. Even diseases like malaria are suspected to have originated in farming populations before having spread out into wild mosquitoes and hunter-gatherer tribal populations. Even in modern urbanization, humans continue to live closely to and even cohabitate with non-human animals. This is why populations in New England, where indoor cats are common, have high rates of toxoplasmosis parasitism, despite a generally healthy population.

Plus, at least in the US, these heavily urbanized conditions tend to correlate with high rates of poverty, homelessness, and inequality (partly because most of the poor left rural areas to look for work in cities where they became concentrated) — these high rates all strongly correlated to lower health outcomes, particularly the last, inequality. Of the only four states with above average economic inequality in the US, three of them (NY, LA, CA) had all around bad COVID-19 outcomes, with only high inequality Connecticut escaping this pattern by remaining moderate on job losses and excess deaths. As expected, the states that did the best in keeping both low were mostly low inequality. Other than two in the mid-range (WV, NC), all of the other cases of COVID-19 success are among the lowest inequality states in the country — according to ranking: 1) UT, 4) WY, 7) NE, 12) ID, 13) ME, and 15) IN. All of the top 10 low inequality states were low in COVID-related mortality and/or unemployment. That result, by the way, is completely predictable as it matches decades of data on economic inequality and health outcomes. It would be shocking if this present data defied the longstanding connection.

By the way, rural farm and natural resource states tend to be low inequality, whether or not they are low poverty, but research shows that even poverty is far less problematic with less inequality — as economic inequality, besides being a cause or an indicator of divisiveness and stress, correlates to disparities in general: power, representation, legacies, privileges, opportunities, resources, education, healthy food, healthcare, etc (probably entrenched not only in economic, political, and social systems but also epigenetics; maybe even genetics since toxins and other substances, such as oxidized seed oils in cheap processed foods, can act as mutagens which can permanently alter inherited genes; and so inequality gets built into biology, individually and collectively, immediately and transgenerationally). Certain economic sectors tend toward such greater or lesser inequities, and this generally corresponds to residential patterns. But the correlation is hardly causally deterministic, considering the immense variance of inequality among advanced Western countries with more similar cultural and political traditions (party-based representative democracies, individualistic civil rights, and relatively open market economies).

The economic pattern is far different between rural states and urban states, specifically mass urbanization as it’s taken shape over the generations, and it has much to do with historical changes (e.g., factories closed in inner cities and relocated to suburbs and overseas). In big cities, many large populations of the poor (disproportionately non-white) have become economically segregated and concentrated together in ghettoes, old housing, and abandoned industrial areas (because of generations of racist redlining, covenants, loan practices, and employment). These are the least healthy people living in the least healthy conditions (limited healthcare, lack of parks and green spaces, lead toxicity, air pollution, high stress, food deserts, malnutrition, processed foods, etc), all strongly tied to COVID-19 comorbidities. In these population dense and impoverished areas, there is also a lack of healthcare infrastructure and staffing that is especially needed during a public health crisis, and what healthcare exists is deficient and underfunded.

To complicate things, such densely populated areas of mass urbanization make public health difficult because there are so many other factors as well. Particularly in American cities with immigrant and ethnic residents historically and increasingly attracted to big cities, additional factors include diverse sub-populations, neighborhoods, housing conditions, living arrangements, places of employment, social activities, etc. And all of these factors are overlapping, interacting, and compounding in ways not entirely predictable. This might be exacerbated by cultural diversity, since each culture would have varying ways of relating to issues of health, healthcare, and authority figures; such as related to mask mandates, vaccination programs, etc. It would be challenging to successfully plan and effectively implement a single statewide or citywide public health policy and message; as compared to a mostly homogeneous small population in a small rural state (or even a mostly homogeneous small population in a small urban country).

Also, disease outbreaks in big cites and metropolitan areas are much harder to contain using isolation and quarantines, as many people live so close together in apartment buildings and high-rises, particularly the poor where larger numbers of people might be packed into single apartments and/or multiple generations in a single household, and that is combined with more use of mass public transit. This came up as an issue in some countries such as in Southern Europe. Italians tend to live together in multigenerational households and tend to take in family members when unemployed. Combined with poverty, inequality, and policies of economic austerity, the Italian government’s struggle to contain the COVID-19 pandemic made it stand out among Western countries, such that it early on showed potential risks to failing to quickly contain the pandemic. But, in many ways, it might have been as much or more of a sociocultural challenge than a political failure.

On the completely opposite extreme, the Swedish have the highest rate in the world of people living alone, but also some of the lowest poverty and inequality in the world. So, even though Sweden is heavily urbanized (88.2%), contagious disease control is easier; particularly with an already healthy population, universal healthcare, and a well-funded public health system (no economic austerity to be found in Swedish social services). Indeed, they only had to implement moderate public measures and, with a high trust culture, most of the citizenry willingly and effectively complied without it becoming a politicized and polarized debate involving a partisan battle for power and control. By the way, Sweden has a national population only slightly above NYC but less than the NYC metro. Of Nordic cities, Stockholm is the largest in area and the most population dense: total density (13,000/sq mi), urban density (11,000/sq mi), and metro density (950/sq mi). New York City has about two and a half times that urban density.

Then again, all of that isolated urbanization takes it’s toll in other ways, such as a higher suicide rate (is suicide contagious?). It is one of the most common causes of death in Sweden and the highest rate in the West; in the context of Europe being one of the most suicidal continents in the world, although it’s Eastern Europe that is really bad. Among 182 countries, Sweden is 32nd highest in the world with 13.8 suicides per 100,000; compared to Italy at 142nd place with 5.5 suicides per 100,000. That is two and half times as high. But, on a positive note, COVID-19 seems to have had no negative impact in worsening the Swedish suicide epidemic (Christian Rück et al, Will the COVID-19 pandemic lead to a tsunami of suicides? A Swedish nationwide analysis of historical and 2020 data), as presumably being socially isolated or at least residentially isolated is already normalized. If anything, suicidal inclinations might become less compelling or at least suicide attempts no more likely with the apparently successful response of the Swedish government to COVID-19, especially combined with the Swedish culture of trust. Not that global pandemic panic and local pandemic shutdown would be a net gain for Swedish mental health (Lance M. McCracken et al, Psychological impact of COVID-19 in the Swedish population: Depression, anxiety, and insomnia and their associations to risk and vulnerability factors).

So, theoretically, public health during pandemics doesn’t necessarily have to be worse in large dense urban areas, as other factors might supersed. But, unfortunately, it apparently was worse in the US under present (social, economic, and political) conditions, however those conditions came about (a whole other discussion barely touched upon here). Many of the states that fared badly are massively larger than Sweden. As seen with New York City, the US has cities and metros that are larger than many countries in the world. These unique conditions of not merely mass urbanization but vast urbanization have never before existed in global history. The US population now in the COVID-19 outbreak is more than three times larger than during the 1918 Flu. The five boroughs of NYC have almost doubled in population over the past century with Queens almost five times as populated, and surely the NYC metro area has increased far more.

Places like Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City are hubs in immense systems of commerce, transport, and travel with heavily used airports and sea ports, interstate highways and railways, a constant flow of people and products from all over the country and the world (the rise of mass world travel and troop transport was a key factor in the 1918 Flu, helping it to mutate and spread in the deadly second and third waves). Systems thinking and complexity theory have come up in our studies and readings over the years, including in discussions with our father whose expertise directly involves systems used in businesses and markets, particularly factory production, warehousing, and supply chains. Those are relatively simple systems that can to varying degrees be analyzed, predicted, planned, and controlled. But massive and dense populations in highly connected urban areas are unimaginably complex systems with numerous confounding factors and uncontrolled variables, unintended consequences and emergent properties. Add a pandemic to all of that and we are largely in unknown territory, as the last pandemic in the US was over a century ago when the world was far different.

Also, there is there is the issue of how systems differ according to locations and concentrations of various demographics, specifically in contrasting the privileged and underprivileged. That goes back to the issue of poverty, inequality much else. A major reason we’ve had so many problems is because most politicians, lobbyists, media figures, public intellectuals, and social influencers involved in the ‘mainstream’ debate that gets heard and televized are living in separate comfortable, safe, and healthy communities, as separate from both the rural and urban masses, particularly separate from minorities, the poor, and the working class (see: Mental Pandemic and Ideological Lockdown). We could note that the individual who originally showed us the graphed data, as mentioned at the beginning of the post, is of this typical demographic of wealthier urban white who has never personally experienced impoverished population density (AKA slums or ghettoes). And even though urban, like us, he lives in this same rural state with clean air surrounded by open greenspace of parks, woods, and farms; not to mention being smack dab in the middle of the complete opposite of a food desert. This could be why our reference to ‘populated’ states could gain no purchase in his mind and imagination.

Obviously, as complex systems, the densely populated big cities and metros described above aren’t isolated and insular units, contained and controlled experiments. Their populations and economies are inseparable from the rest of the global society, even more true in this age of neoliberal globalization. That would complicate pandemic response in dealing alone with either excess deaths per capita or job loss per capita, but that would exacerbate further the even greater complexity of finding a balance between the two. When these major centers of industrial production, service industry, commerce, trade, transportation, marketing, and finance get shut down (for any reason) and/or when other closely linked major centers get shut down, it severely cripples the entire economy and employment of the state, even ignoring the potential and unpredictable pandemic threat of overwhelmed hospitals, death toll, and long-term health consequences. Economic and public health effects could ripple out and in with secondary and tertiary effects.

It’s not anything like less populated rural farm states and natural resource states where, no matter what is going on in the rest of the country and world, the local population is more isolated and the local economy usually keeps trucking along. The Iowa economy and housing, for example, was barely affected by the 2008 Recession. Indeed, for all its failed state leadership in dealing with COVID-19, low inequality and low poverty Iowa was below average on both job losses and excess deaths. So, if Iowa could do better than most states, in spite of horrible leadership by the Trump-aligned Governor Kim Reynolds (even our Republican parents despise her handling of the crisis), maybe governments in other states also don’t necessarily deserve as much of the blame or credit they are given, at least not in terms of the immediate pandemic response, although long-term public health planning and preparation (over years and decades) would still be important.

That is to say, the situation is complicated. Yet we seem to know what are some of the key complications, however entangled they may be as potentially causal or contributing. It’s a large web of factors, but strong correlations can be discerned, all of it mostly following already known patterns, but of course we are biased in what we notice according to our focus. The data gathered and analyzed this past year, as far as we can tell, is not fundamentally different in nature than any other data gathered and analyzed over the past century. So, even though COVID-19 is a highly unusual event, what is seen in the data isn’t likely to be surprising, even if requiring multiple layers and angles of interpretation. Still, unexpected results would be welcome in possibly indicating something new and interesting. Serious study of this pandemic has barely begun. The data will keep rolling in. Then decades of debate and theorizing will follow. Some of the observations offered here might to varying degrees stand the test of time, such as the well-established inequality links, but surely much of it might prove false, dubious, misleading, or partial. Many questions remain unanswered and, in some cases, unasked.

Face Masks and Novel Coronavirus

There has been much discussion about wearing face masks. The basic purpose is to prevent the spread of viruses, specifically the novel coronavirus, although many masks will also protect against bacteria, air particles, pollutants, and fumes. As for viruses, there are two sides to the equation, what protects you from exposure if others are infected and what protects others from exposure if you are infected. Some argue that basic cloth masks are only effective for protecting others and so you have to hope every infected person around you is wearing a mask. For many of us who aren’t immunocompromised, our main concern is more about protecting others in case we become infected — mask-wearing is caring.

Now about the kinds of mask. I don’t know about elsewhere, but this town has been flooded with cloth masks. Our family has a wide selection of different designs and styles, some procured from workplaces and local organizations while others made with love by family members. Finding a mask that works for each individual is a challenge, as form-fitting, ear comfort, and breathability are the desired traits of a good mask. However, for those who do have health concerns and find themselves in the vulnerable demographics, there are even greater issues for a quality mask. This is where one turns to products being sold, some cheaper and others not so much. The more advanced ones offer higher levels of filtration than an N95 of KN95.

The Vogmask apparently is one of the better face masks on the market. It’s popular and, according to research, highly effective; if pricey. It’s comparable to the also popular and effective Cambridge face mask. Vogmask and Cambridge are basically the same design and material — a person working at one of the companies supposedly left to start the other company. Cambridge seems to be the more well established of the two. They’ve been top ranked for years now, whereas Vogmask is only now catching up, but determining which is better depends on many factors. One would have to look more closely at comparisons in making a decision.

Furthermore, there are similar quality products from Dettol, Breathe Healthy, Airinum, Debrief Me, OnroadCo, and other companies. Another option is Respro that has replaceable filters, but they have to be replaced every month and aren’t cheap either (Product Review: Respro vs. Vogmask Personal Air Pollution Masks). Some claim Cambridge and Respro offer higher filtration than Vogmask (Vogmask Review – All You Need To Know | Breathe Safe AirCambridge Mask – The Best Reusable Respirator? | Breathe Safe Air; & What Are The Differences Between Vogmask and Cambridge Mask for Chronic Illness? A Comprehensiv, e Review), but it’s confusing as Vogmask has different products with different standards depending on the country. Some of these comparisons are about filtration of pollution, allergens, and such; not necessarily viruses.

Even if Cambridge overall might be better, some claim that, “When it comes to viral protection, Vogmask is the better choice” (Reusable Masks – Cambridge Mask Vs Vogmask | Breathe Safe Air). For purposes of control of viral infection, the masks without valves are preferable, assuming you care about the lives of others (A Growing Body Of Research Highlights The Importance Of Wearing Face Masks). It might be added that other companies produce face masks with high viral filtration: Respro, Re-Mask, O2 Canada, and Debrief Me (12 Best Reusable Respirators – Cambridge Mask Alternatives). Re-Mask and Aropec offers a face mask without a valve; Aropec is another great anti-viral mask (Aropec Anti-Viral Mask Review – 99% Reduction in Viruses). For something really different, consider the Purely KN95 Mask which has a small attached fan that increases flow of fresh, filtered air into mask.

Some complaints about Vogmask are what one hears with any such face mask. For example, they can be hard to breathe in but others don’t find this problematic. Vogmask does make products with one or two valves to ease exhalation. One reviewer preferred Vogmask, even though it could fog up his glasses, a problem he said he had with every other kind of mask he had tried (maybe he has an oddly shaped face). Another issue is they only protect well to the degree they fit well. A benefit of Vogmask is that they come in multiple sizes and a cinch strap can be added to improve a tighter fit.

If you want to know the technical details of each kind of Vogmask product, there is a page that gives the specs and includes info on government standards and test results: “95% Particle Penetration Filtering Efficiency, Filter class provides >99.9% Viral and Bacterial Filtering Efficiency, Safe and Comfortable Breathing Resistance, Valves Tested for inward valve leakage.” Also, see the third-party analysis from Nelson Labs, Viral Filtration Efficiency (VFE) Final Report. As a side note, Nelson Labs has also tested the products of Cambridge and Re-Mask. One reviewer pointed out, though, that they had to request Cambridge’s test results, as opposed to Vogmask that publicly shares their lab certificates — greater transparency is commendable.

By the way, “Vogmask products are also long-lasting – their obsolescence date is 3 years from the date of the manufacturing; the masks can be safely used for about 1 year in moderately contaminated environments and for 5-6 months in environments contaminated with high levels of particulate matter in the air” (Our Vogmask Review for Wildfire Smoke and Air Pollution). Someone else suggested it could be used longer: “The middle filter layer can be used for up to three years, but most users replace with a new one every year” (Coronavirus: Reusable Masks That Work).

Below are some reviews. Keep in mind that some of the reviews are more recent than others. Vogmask has put out new and improved face masks the past few years, which may include changes made since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. So, it’s not clear how the present line of Vogmask products might compare against the other brands. At the very least, it’s safe to say that they are among the best available. On the other hand, not all Vogmask products are equal, as they offer different levels of filtration; and so shop carefully for your individual needs and purpose.

* * *

Vogmask Review For Pollution and Allergies (Plus Head Strap)

Vogmask N99 (what does N99 mean)

If you’re wondering what N99 means you’re not alone. Labeling on face masks can be confusing.

N99 is the mask’s efficiency level. Pay close attention to the number 99. On a face mask marked 99 it will filter 99% of particulates 2.5 in the air. Particulate matter 2.5 are particles that measure 2.5 micrometers and are a mixture of solid and liquid droplets floating in the air (they are invisible to our eyes).

Particulate matter creates the haze we often see in the sky and the particles are so small the can be inhaled deep into our lungs. The strongest efficiency levels are usually 99% and 95% for allergy masks.

An N99 mask won’t protect against oil based pollutants, however Vogmask also uses a carbon filter in their masks that trap chemicals and oil based pollutions. Think of the mask as a dual filter.

If you use a surgical mask you likely won’t be getting the PM 2.5 protection or the carbon filter. A Vogmask will protect from PM 2.5 and comes with a carbon filter too!

Vogmask Review – The Most Stylish Anti-Pollution Facemask?

Vogmask: effectiveness and protection against viruses

Vogmask is well-known over the globe. It had undergone extensive evaluations in different regions worldwide.

In South Korea, it was awarded KF94 certification from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. China also issued a certificate KN-95, which means that Vogmask meets a 95% filtering limit for particles under .3-micron size.

Vogmasks were reviewed and certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, as well as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Models like Vogmask N95 are proven to filter approximately 95% of particles found in the air. It’s also one of the most common face equipment available for the public.

The primary purpose of a Vogmask is protection against airborne particles, allergens, germs, odors, and scents. It can also intercept other various contaminants. Vogmask products are proven to be 99.9% effective again 0.3, 2.5, and 10-micron particulate matter (air particles). They can also filter dust particles with a size smaller than 0.254 microns.

What about other dangerous viruses like COVID-19?

Theoretically, N95 can be effective even against coronavirus. But the results of a Vogmask review conducted in 2014 have shown ambivalent outcomes. But it’s mostly because the results are hard to measure retrospectively and not due to how they perform.

At the same time, clinical reviews suggest that Vogmask N95 offers undeniable protective advantages over standard medical masks.

There’s also Vogmask N99, which is available in microfiber and organic cotton versions. It offers two built-in valves, which provide multi-layered filtration of microns with a size smaller than 0.3-microns.

Numerous Vogmask reviews argue that this gear offers an appropriate level of protection to ward off viruses and bacteria. The current Viral Filtration Efficiency stands at about 99% for the abovementioned N95 and N99 Vogmask models.

Vogmask Review (Effective For Dust And Allergies?)

Does Vogmask Filter Out Viruses?

One of the common questions raised is whether Vogmask is effective in protecting against viruses, particularly flu. It is known that N95 masks are certified to block 95% of PM2.5 particles but is it effective for viruses?

A study in Hong Kong involving 407 participants has shown that surgical mask is effective to reduce the spread of influenza viruses. Typical surgical facemask offers lower filter protection than N95 masks.

As Vogmask is N95-rated, it is fair to state that it offers reasonable protection against the flu virus. However, it is important to note that different types of viruses may have different sizes. In another study, it is found that the penetration rate of viruses measuring 10nm – 80 nm may exceed the 5% threshold.

Vogmask Review – All You Need To Know | Breathe Safe Air

One thing that I appreciate with Vogmask is that they provide links to their lab certificates. Not many mask creators show these certificates publicly, however, Vogmask has them available to everyone.

Vogmask conforms to the KF94 standard from South Korea. This is a globally recognised standard for fine dust protection and is roughly equivalent to FFP2, and performs slightly worse than N95.

The masks also conform to the N95 standard but they do NOT hold an official N95 rating (CDC). That is to say, Vogmask meets the N95 standard for filtration efficiency (< 95%) however, it does not hold an N95 rating (Vogmask).

Vogmask also conforms to the NIOSH standards for inhalation and exhalation resistance along with valve leakage. This means that Vogmask should be comfortable to breathe through (Vogmask).

On top of this, these masks also features bacterial and viral filtration, and have been tested by Nelson Labs for each.

For bacteria at 3 ± 0.3 micrometres, the masks feature 99.9% filtration. This will provide filtration against many, but not all, kinds of bacteria. It is worth noting, however, that even though they may not be tested for it, many masks are capable of filtering even smaller particles (Vogmask).

For viruses at 3 ± 0.3 Vogmask also features 99.9% filtration. This means that Vogmask will be very efficient at filtering larger viral particles. Many viruses are smaller than 3 micrometres, however (Vogmask). If you are interested in an anti-viral mask, check out the Aropec anti-viral mask.

As mentioned earlier, it is important to note that while Vogmask does not guarantee any protection against smaller particles, that some N95 respirators are quite effective at small particle filtration even though they are not rated for it (3M).

Since Vogmask is not officially rated as N95, and since N95 is rated for filtration at 0.3 micrometres, there is no guarantee that your mask will filter viral particles. However, respirators do tend to provide some protection against smaller particles.

Compared to other masks on the market, Vogmask sits in the middle of filtration efficiency. There are some masks which perform better – certain Cambridge Mask (N99 equivalent) and Respro (FFP3) models perform better, at least in regards to fine dust filtrationRe-Mask masks also offer more filtration, along with the Earth Filters that the company makes.

However, there are also many reusable masks that are rated around N95, and many hold no rating at all. Vogmask is a mask that you can trust to provide around 95% filtration for fine dust particles – provided of course, that it is fitted correctly.

Another interesting fact that I came across while researching was that Vogmask appears to offer different models to different regions. Vogmask.com sells the models listed above and is targeted at a U.S audience. These masks have a KF94 rating.

However, Vogmask-Europe.com offers N99CV and N99 organic models. These masks are rated KF94, KN95, and claim to meet N99 criteria (but as with the U.S models, they do NOT have an N99 certification).

These masks also hold the FFP1 R rating, which is (according to Vogmask support) due to their small size when is intended for youths.

Therefore, rather confusingly, it appears that EU Vogmask models meet (but don’t hold) N99 certification. U.S (and global) models meet (but don’t hold) N95 certification.

Coronavirus: Reusable Masks That Work

1. Vogmask
Vogmask can filter particles as small as 0.254 microns in the air (including PM 0.3 / PM 2.5 / PM 10 suspended particles), such as bacteria, viruses, allergens, dust, odors, mold spores, mold, volcanic particles, etc. Proven to be very useful against air pollution.

2. Breathe Easy
Breathe Healthy uses advanced AEGIS antibacterial treatment technology to form a colorless, odorless, positively charged antibacterial protective layer on the surface of the product. When exposed to microorganisms, the C-18 molecules in the protective layer will pierce the cell membrane and let the charge impact the cells. After testing, the protective layer on the mask continues to be effective throughout its useful life. It can filter particles as small as 1.0 micron in the air, prevent the body from inhaling airborne bacteria and allergens, and is very helpful for preventing flu and reducing the incidence of asthma .

3. Cambridge Mask
Known as the British pollution solution, the filtration system of Cambridge Mask™ combines a particulate filter layer and a military-grade carbon filter. It has been tested by the Nelson Lab in the United States and has been certified to meet the N99 particle filtration standards. Particulate contamination provides nearly 100% protection. The inner layer of the mask is a military-grade carbon filter developed by the British Ministry of Defence to filter out viruses, bacteria and gaseous pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOC), ozone, benzine and formaldehyde.

Cambridge Masks are available in two versions:
Cambridge Mask BASIC meets N95 standards, can filter 95% of particles, bacteria and viruses in the air. It can be used for 90 hours.
Cambridge Mask PRO Meet N99 (higher than N95) standards, can filter 99.6% of particles, bacteria and viruses in the air. It can be used for up to 340 hours.

Do Air Masks Help With Pollution? Which Ones Actually Matter?

Dettol Air Mask: Amazon India and Dettol have launched an air mask that claims to protect you from haze, dust, pollen. It is has an adjustable nose that fits the face and is air tight. It comes with two filters and has ear loops that can be adjusted. The mask is all black and comes with its pouch. The air mask is priced at Rs. 699.

The Vogmask: The Vogmask claims to be better than the N95 masks that are available on the market. These come in all shapes, sizes, and styles. The Vogmask is however a bit on the expensive side. It starts at Rs. 2,000. On the other hand, you can hand wash them and you can use for longer period of time.

These Vogmask masks also have a second layer that helps you deal with stuffiness during summer – however we still found it stuffy to wear. But it could be because we have been just getting used to the concept of covering our noses. So, whether you are a runner, cyclist or even a brisk walker. you should check this one out.

Cambridge Masks: These are made a bit differently but results are similar to the Vogmask. There are three layers to this mask – one to block dust, other to curb PM 2.5 particulate matter and the last layer is to fight bacteria. The Cambridge masks were launched in China first, and now, they are in India starting at Rs. 2000, hoping to influence users.

10 Fashionable Face Masks People With Chronic Illness Recommend

Vogmask is a filtering respirator intended for general public use that can help protect you against allergens, poor air quality and airborne contaminants. It can filter out up to 99 percent of airborne particles. To be effective, a respirator must be sized to fit tightly against your face and create a seal. They are also known for being hot and uncomfortable to wear. The experience has been described as breathing through a blanket, and may not be an option for those who have difficulty breathing. Some come with an exhaust valve to increase their comfort. […]

Padi may be a dive training organization, but its affiliated Padi Gear website offers athletic wear, now including face masks. Padi Gear’s face masks, which feature five different sea-themed patterns, are made from recycled plastic. The multilayered mask is designed to be breathable, and each masks comes with five carbon filters. Padi Gear masks are secured using elastic ear straps. […]

Rafi Nova masks offer three layers of cotton fabric with a built-in filter that is designed to make these face masks both effective and breathable. These masks also have an additional pocket to add another filter layer. The company offers the masks in several types of straps, from ties to around-the-ear elastics. Rafi Nova also makes a mask with a clear panel in the front for those who are Deaf or hard of hearing. […]

Breathe Healthy face masks are designed to protect against dust, pollen, allergens and the flu. It is made with an antimicrobial agent that kills germs and lasts as long as the mask, even after multiple washings.[…]

This neoprene respirator is designed for landscaping or outdoor work, but it provides all-purpose protection and can filtrate up to 99.9 percent of all particulates and dust. Its dual-valve exhaust provides one-way easy breathing, expels moisture and optimizes temperature. […]

Cambridge masks are washable and reusable. They can filter out almost 100 percent of particulate matter, allergens or irritants, air pollution and harmful airborne pathogens such as viruses and bacteria.

Buying face masks with filters? Here’s what medical experts recommend.

1. Avocado Green Mattress Organic Cotton Face Mask
The maker of eco-friendly mattresses is making 100-percent organic cotton fabric face masks available in packs of four. They can allow for a separate filter to be inserted. The brand has so far made more than 130,000 non-medical grade masks, and will be donating on percent of sales to the EcoHealth Alliance.

2. Casetify Reusable Cloth Mask
The technology brand is pivoting to making reusable masks. The masks come in five different colors and are made of cotton material — plus, they come already fitted with a filter, plus two additional ones. For every mask sold, Casetify will donate a surgical mask to a medical worker in need via Direct Relief. The company is also selling packs of 10 interchangeable carbon filters.

3. Hedley & Bennett The Wake Up & Fight Mask
These reusable masks come in plenty of different styles and are designed to be used with a filter, such as a HEPA filter, inserted within the fabric. The masks were developed with a pediatric orthopedic surgeon and are one-size-fits-most. Each purchase provides a mask for you and a donation of one for a frontline worker.

4. Honeycomb Carbon Filter Masks (Out of Stock)
This mask comes with a disposable carbon filter inside layers of cotton and polyester. The outer layer is mesh and comes in five different colors. These masks are both washable and reusable.

5. Kinglight
These activated carbon filters come in packs of 10, and are made of non-woven fabric and cotton. The filter’s five layers effectively filter out emissions, exhaust and other particulates.

6. Ministry of Supply Mask Kit (Pre-Order)
Each mask, made of washable fabric, comes with 10 disposable filters. The masks are made out of 3D Print-Knit technology, a knit that’s 3D printed. For each mask sold, the company is donating a mask to frontline healthcare workers at Boston Medical Center.

7. OUBA Face Mask Filters
These individual filters are made with activated charcoal and five layers of cotton. These filters help filter out particulates like pollen, exhaust and allergens. Filters come in packs of 20 disposable filters and can easily be inserted to any mask with a pocket.

8. Public Goods K95 Face Masks (Out of Stock)
These non-medical masks are KN95-certified, meaning they adhere to the Chinese standards for respirator masks, according to the CDC. These masks include five layers of polypropylene and cotton filters and have a nose clip to fit the mask more tightly to your face.

9. Vida Mask Filter Replacements
The retailer is selling non-medical face masks, in addition to packs of five insertable filters designed to block airborne contaminants. VIDA recommends users change out the filter every seven days.

10. Vistaprint Face Masks
The printing company has created their own reusable masks that allow for a filter to be inserted. The masks come in three colorful designs and have four filtration layers: a textile exterior, replaceable fiber filter, a cloth layer and a 100-percent cotton inner layer. The company is also selling packs of 10 disposable filters, that can be used for up to 12 hours.

11. Vogmask
These filter masks claim to filter out airborne particulate .3 microns or larger, and additionally come with an exhalation valve and noseband for a tighter fit. The mask is made out of cotton and spandex, and comes in five sizes — and plenty of colorful designs. Most masks are currently sold out, but expected to be restocked soon.

Disaster Capitalism Causes Disasters

Many have wondered why some places have been hit hard by the pandemic (Spain, Italy, New York, etc) whereas others still are barely affected. Some likely factors are public transportation, population density, and multiple generation households. Socioeconomic conditions and probably inequality also is involved, as poverty correlates with higher rates of immunological compromise and dysfunction because of stress, food deserts, parasite load, lack of healthcare, and such.

Air pollution, for example, increases asthma which is a major comorbidity of COVID-19. And, of course, poor areas tend to have far worse air pollution, not to mention heavy metal toxicity from old paint and pipes, toxic soil from old factories, and toxic waste dumps. But it turns out that the virus SARS-CoV-2 can also be carried by air pollution particles: Ron Brackett reports that, “Air samples were collected at two sites in Bergamo province in northern Italy’s Lombardy region, the area of the country hit hardest by the pandemic. Testing found a gene highly specific to COVID-19 in multiple samples from the province, one of the most polluted in Italy” (Researchers Find Coronavirus on Pollution Particles). That might be another explanation for why dense urban areas like New York City could worsen infection and death rates.

Consider the example of Italy (Conn Hallinan, How Austerity and Anti-Immigrant Politics Left Italy Exposed; & John Buell, Disaster Capitalism and the Real Culprit in the Italian Covid-19 Catastrophe). Since the 2008 recession, the number of Italians in extreme poverty has doubled which no puts it at more than 10% of the population (Eva Pastorelli & Andrea Stocchiero, Inequalities in Italy) with another 6.8% barely above poverty (Federico Razetti, Poor, scarcely poor and almost poor: what’s going on in Italy?) — combined together, that equates to around 10 million Italians, which is more than the entire population of New York City. Bergamo province is in northern Italy. Even worst poverty is found further south, the location of 70% of the poor (Michael Huang, 10 Facts About Poverty In Italy That Everyone Should Know).

Two of the countries most devastated by COVID-19 are Italy and Spain, both of which have suffered from high rates of poverty combined with economic austerity. As in the United States, it’s the most impoverished and underprivileged who bear the brunt. Shockingly, in New York City, almost half the population is at or near the poverty level with one in five fully in poverty (NYC Opportunity, Poverty in NYC). Although NYC poverty has dropped slightly, inequality remains as high as ever (Elizabeth Kim, NYC Poverty Level Drops To Record Lows, But Income Inequality Persists). It’s unsurprising that such immense poverty and inequality crippled the public health response in such places and specifically harmed those worse off, such as seen in Spain (Guy Hedgecoe, In Spain, austerity legacy cripples coronavirus fight; Brais Fernandez, Spain’s Hospitals Have Suffered Death by a Thousand Cuts; & Stephen Burgen, Poor and vulnerable hardest hit by pandemic in Spain). Such pandemic inequality has been seen all across the United States with poor minorities hit the hardest.

For a combination of reasons, the poor are hit hardest and specifically where poverty is concentrated and exacerbated by high inequality. And this pandemic will only worsen poverty and inequality, unless we demand reforms that are both democratic and progressive. But if we let disaster capitalism run rampant, it will bring on further disasters.

* * *

Austerity in the Age of COVID-19: A Match Made in Hell?
by Paul Rogers

The Impact of COVID-19 Is All Down to Inequality
by Mariano Aguirre

How austerity measures hurt the COVID-19 response
by Cristina Fominaya

As Coronavirus Deepens Inequality, Inequality Worsens Its Spread
by Max Fisher and Emma Bubola

The coronavirus pandemic is already increasing inequality
by Steve Schifferes

Covid-19 shows why tackling inequality benefits everyone
by Han Fook Kwang

The pandemic strengthens the case for universal basic income
by Ishaan Tharoor

The Pandemic Now And Going Into The Future

“I think people haven’t understood that this isn’t about the next couple of weeks. This is about the next two years.”
~Michael Osterholm, infectious-disease epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota

“Everyone wants to know when this will end. That’s not the right question. The right question is: How do we continue?”
~Devi Sridhar, public-health expert at the University of Edinburgh

A week ago, the highest daily Covid-19 death count for the US was more than 2,000. Now it reached over 4,500 over the past day. That is an expected exponential increase. And that is with strong measures like lockdowns taken place across the country. When doing a recount by adding in all deaths now known, China increased their Wuhan deaths by 50%. That is probably true in many places where hospitals were overwhelmed and many died without medical care.

This isn’t to imply China was necessarily being deceptive in covering up the real numbers. For a while now, medical staff in the US have said the same thing about hospitals here underreporting Covid-19 deaths. Healthcare worker deaths may also be higher. In another article, there was shared the photographs and stories of some of these people who died while helping others. I noticed that all of them looked overweight, indicating metabolic syndrome which is one of the main comorbidities.

By the way, one expert talks about five stages for the pandemic. We are in the second phase which is mitigation following the initial containment. After that will be another period of containment while we wait for a vaccine, other treatments, and improved lab testing. That could take us into next year, but the economy will begin to restart during this time.

As communities begin to open up again, the government will have to become very strict, systematic, and targeted in quarantining the infected. Cleaning and disinfection of public places will become a priority, as will the use of protective gear. The fourth stage comes when we have a vaccine, assuming we get one in the relatively near future. The hope is to be in a more advanced situation of containment before a second wave of infections might hit in the fall.

With everything reasonably under control, we end with the last stage where we assess the situation, determine successes and failures, and then prepare for the next pandemic. That means making pandemic preparation central to national security.

This situation, of course, has long term consequences. Donald Trump being president exacerbates this. Even before the pandemic, his actions as leader were driving a wedge between the US and its allies. Many foreign governments were seeing the US as no longer trustworthy and reliable. Trump’s attacking and defunding the WHO, if somewhat deserved, has further undermined US authority — specifically among the G7. The US might never recover its position in the world. This might be the end of US hegemony.

Now most likely Trump will be re-elected. So four more years of more of the same, precisely at the moment when confidence has been shaken in national leadership and the federal government. The main promise Trump made was that he would make the American economy great again, but now it will be in shambles. All his scapegoating will only go so far. While Americans suffer, people will want actions and reform, not snarky blame games for political gain.

For years and maybe decades to come, we might not only be recovering from the pandemic and all that is related to it but a more general sense of decline and malaise, if not further catastrophes that become existential crises. If we are to enter a re-building phase, it’s going to require entirely new leadership in both of the main parties. We can hope for an era of large-scale reform that will transform our society, but it’s hard to see hope at the moment.

* * *

Some articles of interest:

Some Thoughts On Thinking Critically In Times Of Uncertainty, And The Trap of Lopsided Skepticism: Coronaspiracy Theory Edition
by Denise Minger

In case you didn’t notice, the cyber-world (and its 3D counterpart, I assume, but we’re not allowed to venture there anymore) is currently a hot mess of Who and what do we believe? This is zero percent surprising. Official agencies have handled COVID-19 with the all grace of a three-legged elephant—waffling between the virus being under control/not under control/OMG millions dead/wait no 60,000/let’s pack the churches on Easter!/naw, lockdown-til-August/face masks do nothing/face masks do something, but healthcare workers need them more/FACE MASKS FOR EVERY FACE RIGHT NOW PLEASE AND THANK YOU/oh no a tiger got the ‘rona!; on and on. It’s dizzying. Maddening. The opposite of confidence-instilling. And as a very predictable result, guerrilla journalism has grown to fill the void left by those who’ve failed to tell us, with any believability, what’s going on.

Exercising our investigative rights is usually a good thing. You guys know me. I’m all about questioning established narratives and digging into the forces that crafted them. It’s literally my life. Good things happen when we flex our thinking muscle, and nothing we’re told should be immune to scrutiny.

But there’s a shadow side here, too—what I’ll henceforth refer to as “lopsided skepticism.” This is what happens when we question established narratives… but not the non-established ones. More specifically, when we go so hog wild ripping apart The Official Story that we somehow have no skepticism left over for all the new stuff we’re replacing it with.

And that, my friends, is exactly what’s happening right now.

The dangerous conservative campaign against expertise
by Michael Gerson

Motivated reasoning is usually just tiresome. At its worst, it can be dangerous. Sometimes drawing the wrong lesson badly obscures a right and necessary lesson. Sometimes the interpretation of a crisis is so dramatically mistaken, so ludicrous and imprudent, that it can worsen the crisis itself.

Such is the case with conservatives who look at the coronavirus outbreak and see, of all things, the discrediting of experts and expertise. In this view, the failures of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have brought the whole profession into disrepute. The judgments of health professionals have often been no better than the folk wisdom of the Internet. The pandemic is not only further proof of the fallibility of insiders; it has revealed the inherent inaccessibility of medical truth. All of us, scientists and nonscientists, are walking blindly on the same misty moor and may stumble on medical insights.

This argument assumes an intellectual fog that is just lifting. Though we are still relatively early in the pandemic, this much seems clear: The medical experts recommended aggressive social distancing to bend the curve of infections and deaths downward. Americans generally trusted the experts. By all the evidence, aggressive social distancing is bending the curve of infections and deaths downward. And places that were earliest and most aggressive in this approach have seen the best results.

This outcome doesn’t strike me as murky. It is difficult to see how experts whose advice clearly saved tens of thousands of lives can be called discredited. It is easy, however, to see how making this false claim might undermine public adherence to their advice, which still matters greatly in the crisis.

Our Pandemic Summer
by Ed Yong

If it turns out that, say, 20 percent of the U.S. has been infected, that would mean the coronavirus is more transmissible but less deadly than scientists think. It would also mean that a reasonable proportion of the country has some immunity. If that proportion could be slowly and safely raised to the level necessary for herd immunity—60 to 80 percent, depending on the virus’s transmissibility—the U.S. might not need to wait for a vaccine. However, if just 1 to 5 percent of the population has been infected—the range that many researchers think is likelier—that would mean “this is a truly devastating virus, and we have built up no real population immunity,” said Michael Mina, an epidemiologist and immunologist at Harvard. “Then we’re in dire straits in terms of how to move forward.”

Even in the optimistic scenario, a quick and complete return to normalcy would be ill-advised. And even in the pessimistic scenario, controlling future outbreaks should still be possible, but only through an immense public-health effort. Epidemiologists would need to run diagnostic tests on anyone with COVID-19–like symptoms, quarantine infected people, trace everyone those people had contact with in the previous week or so, and either quarantine those contacts or test them too. These are the standard pillars of public health, but they’re complicated by the coronavirus’s ability to spread for days before causing symptoms. Every infected person has a lot of potential contacts, and may have unknowingly infected many of them.

The Pandemic Will Cleave America in Two
by Joe Pinsker

When someone dies, there are three ways to think about what caused it, according to Scott Frank, a professor at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Medicine. The first is the straightforward, “medical” cause of death—diagnosable things like heart disease or cancer. The second is the “actual” cause of death—that is, the habits and behaviors that over time contributed to the medical cause of death, such as smoking cigarettes or being physically inactive. The third is what Frank refers to as the “actual actual” cause of death—the bigger, society-wide forces that shaped those habits and behaviors.

In one analysis of deaths in the U.S. resulting from “social factors” (Frank’s “actual actual” causes), the top culprits were poverty, low levels of education, and racial segregation. “Each of these has been demonstrated to have independent effects on chronic-disease mortality and morbidity,” Frank said. (Morbidity refers to whether someone has a certain disease.) He expects that the same patterns will hold for COVID-19.

To begin with, the physical effects of COVID-19 are far worse for some people than others. There are two traits that seem to matter most. The first is age. Older people are at greater risk of experiencing the more devastating version of the pandemic, in part because the immune system weakens with age. Early data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that, in the U.S., the risk of dying from the disease begins to climb at around age 55, and is especially acute for those 85 and older. “I think the pattern we’re going to see clearly is an age-related pattern” of mortality, Andrew Noymer, a public-health professor at UC Irvine, said. (Younger people aren’t invulnerable to the disease, though; the CDC found in mid-March that 20-to-54-year-olds had accounted for almost 40 percent of hospitalizations known to have been caused by the disease.

The second trait that puts someone at increased risk is having a serious health condition such as diabetes, heart disease, or lung disease. These conditions seem to make cases of COVID-19 more likely to be severe or fatal, and the risks rise considerably for older adults who have any of these conditions, Frank told me.

But while everyone ages, rich and poor alike, these health conditions are not evenly distributed throughout the population. They’re more common among people with less education, less money, and less access to health care. “We know these social and economic conditions have a profound effect on chronic disease,” Frank said, “and then chronic disease has a profound effect on the mortality related to COVID.”

Useful Info On Covid-19

For covid-19, data has been coming out. Two things to keep in mind are the incubation period and the latent period. The incubation period is the time from when the individual is infected to when they show symptoms, although there are asymptomatic cases where no symptoms are experienced at all.

The average incubation period is 3 days, but it can be as short as 2 days or maybe as long as 21 days or even 24 days. The upper end is rare. Quarantine for 14 days was assumed to be sufficient for nearly all patients. Even a quarantine of less than that, if implemented strictly and widely, presumably would eliminate most infections. Is that true?

More important is the latent period. This is how long it takes from being infected to the onset of symptoms. Keep in mind that, as I understand it, covid-19 is not more contagious than the common flu with any single exposure. Rather, there is a longer potential exposure period which translates as a higher infection rate.

It’s not clear how long one carries the virus and can pass it on to others. Doctors detected the RNA of the virus in the lungs 20 days after infection. And in a study, the pathogen was found in the respiratory tract for much longer, upwards of 37 days. However, carrying the virus doesn’t necessarily mean one is infectious.

For mild cases which is most cases, the infectious period following symptoms doesn’t likely last more than 10 days, even as the virus still can be detected. To demonstrate this, researchers used samples from patients (sputum, blood, urine, stool) to try to grow the virus. On day 8, they failed to do so with patients of mild infections.

So, the fact that some can test positive for weeks might be largely irrelevant. Most patients stop what is called viral shedding in the first 5 days, although in a minority of patients with severe sickness it can go some days beyond that. The extreme cases involved pneumonia and the viral shedding continued for 10-11 days. Still, generally speaking, the most infectious period is those first few days.

Also, keep in mind that not everyone is equally infectious. An elderly couple went on a cruise ship together for a couple of weeks. The wife got infected and presumably was sick for the entire two weeks and yet the husband remained free of infection.

Someone with symptoms may infect no one else while someone without symptoms could easily infect many. It is about 1.2% of covid-19 patients that show no symptoms. On the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 322 of 621 people tested positive with no symptoms. That makes containment difficult, especially with limited ability to do testing.

About symptoms, here is a key piece of info. In a small but significant number of cases, there are no symptoms at all. In many other cases, the symptoms are minor or even atypical. We mostly hear from the media about the respiratory problems, but it can be seen in other ways. Nearly half (48.5%) of patients had digestive issues such as diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. And about 7% showed no respiratory symptoms at all.

There are other symptoms as well. Most recently, it’s been found that loss of taste and smell can be a sign of infection. About half of patients, in one cluster from Germany, experienced a change in smell or taste. Sensory loss usually follows respiratory symptoms, although not always. Another symptom is redness around the eyes, as seen in some of the worst cases.

Those without the typical respiratory problems and higher temperature don’t see a doctor or only do so much later. This can actually make these cases more severe with a longer recovery period. Yet for some reason, few people are talking about the full spectrum of potential symptoms. In many lists of symptoms, gastrointestinal distress is not mentioned at all. And the loss of senses is only now being reported on.

Bonus info: A mouse study showed that ketosis has protectin against influenza (flu). Coronavirus is different in many ways, but the body deals with viruses through the same basic mechanisms. Ketosis causes the body to produce a special kind of T cell in the lungs and also a protective layer of mucose in the lungs. The survival rate of mice was higher for the mice on a keto diet.

This might be a similar reason why ketosis is inefficient in producing excess heat. Ben Bikman speculates this has to do with the time of year, winter, when ketosis tends to happen. While fasting or in dietary restriction during winter, it would be useful for both the body to produce extra heat and for the immune system to shift into higher functioning.

* * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coronavirus may incubate for longer than we thought–which means quarantines may have been too short
by Joseph Guzman

A Person Can Carry And Transmit COVID-19 Without Showing Symptoms, Scientists Confirm
by Aria Bendix

Coronavirus Can Live in Patients for Five Weeks After Contagion
by Claire Che

People ‘shed’ high levels of coronavirus, study finds, but most are likely not infectious after recovery begins
by Helen Branswell

‘Covid-19 most infectious in early days’
by Sumitra Debroy & Malathy Iyer

Lost Sense of Smell May Be Peculiar Clue to Coronavirus Infection
by Roni Caryn Rabin

Study: Nearly half of COVID-19 patients experience digestive issues
by Joseph Guzman

Diarrhea Could Be First Sign Of Coronavirus Infection, Study Says
by Jan Cortes

Doctors say pink eye with other key symptoms may represent COVID-19 cases
from Chron