SARS didn't do the markets a lot of good - what about Swine Flu Epidemic

inspector_monkfish

misskool wrote: »

normal face masks do nothing except give a false sense of security.much better to concentrate on good hygiene practice.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/who-will-be-the-first-!!!!!!-to-wear--a-facemask?-200904291731/

Davesnave

misskool wrote: »

normal face masks do nothing except give a false sense of security.much better to concentrate on good hygiene practice.

That's what the government* will tell you and, so far as DIY dust masks are concerned, you're right. Those up to the correct British or American standards are another matter, however, though none is perfect and all work for only a finite time.

I agree totally about the hygiene bit.

*But you may be able to work out why they'll spin that to the populace!;)

mizzbiz

Davesnave wrote: »

That's what the government* will tell you and, so far as DIY dust masks are concerned, you're right. Those up to the correct British or American standards are another matter, however, though none is perfect and all work for only a finite time.

I agree totally about the hygiene bit.

*But you may be able to work out why they'll spin that to the populace!;)

Why?

This uestion has been bugging me all day...... I can think of some sinister reasons (like keeping deaths in the news deflects attention from bd government) but I'd like to know why they would tell us that masks dont work?

lostinrates

I was at both my GP and local hospital today. GP said only one person had been worried they had swine flu, but most people were not flocking to his doors, so locally the NHS weren't suffering too much. At the hospital they said no one had tried to admit themselves with swine flu there either. Thankfully, people seem, locally, to be being sensible and not imagining they are suffering this.

hermanmunster_3

mizzbiz wrote: »

Why?

This uestion has been bugging me all day...... I can think of some sinister reasons (like keeping deaths in the news deflects attention from bd government) but I'd like to know why they would tell us that masks dont work?

as a GP who will be visiting people with flu in their homes and seeing them (at specific times) at the practice, I would very much like to believe that the masks help. I plan to use a fresh mask for each visit and dump it into aplastic bag when I get back into the car - hopefully it won;t get too damp in that time. we'll also have a large bottle of alcohol gel in the car too. The masks we have been sent initially are fairly basic but hopefully we will get some more soon.
We deal with flu epidemics / D&V outbreaks / from time to time - no doubt we will just have to approach this in the same way. Won;t be able to manage much routine work for a while if things get busy.

hermanmunster_3

lostinrates wrote: »

I was at both my GP and local hospital today. GP said only one person had been worried they had swine flu, but most people were not flocking to his doors, so locally the NHS weren't suffering too much. At the hospital they said no one had tried to admit themselves with swine flu there either. Thankfully, people seem, locally, to be being sensible and not imagining they are suffering this.

I've not had anyone worrying about it yet - then no one has travelled to mexico locally, except one GP colleague and she is fine and wouldn't flap

amcluesent

"So I'll have a family bucket, extra Coke and coleslaw. To take away, obviously!"

bubblesmoney

hermanmunster wrote: »

as a GP who will be visiting people with flu in their homes and seeing them (at specific times) at the practice, I would very much like to believe that the masks help. I plan to use a fresh mask for each visit and dump it into aplastic bag when I get back into the car - hopefully it won;t get too damp in that time. we'll also have a large bottle of alcohol gel in the car too. The masks we have been sent initially are fairly basic but hopefully we will get some more soon.
We deal with flu epidemics / D&V outbreaks / from time to time - no doubt we will just have to approach this in the same way. Won;t be able to manage much routine work for a while if things get busy.

the normal masks arent much good against viruses. they arent even good for the likes of TB which is a bacterium (just mentioning this for the general public as am sure you know that already).

also i dont think alcohol gel is any protection against virulent / resilient viruses. chlorhex spray might be a better option i think as it is a viricidal and useful against resilient viruses like hep B. although i dont know about there effectiveness against influenza viruses i admit. but since hep B is a very resilient and infective virus and has survived in experiments upto 2y in dust particles and still been active wrt infectivity, i assume if it kills that then it would be good enough for influenza viruses for hand cleaning purposes.

chlorhex 0.5% spray might be useful but 2% (70% alcohol based and not the aqeous based one) might be a better option although i dont know if it comes in a spray version.

for that matter the alcohol gel is useless against c diff (spores) diarrhoea as well since you mention diarrhoea cases needing to be seen on your home visits.

just mentioning the chlorhex because you mentioned alcohol gel. i am not buying any of it (masks or spray or anything else) myself at home even though if a really sick patient arrived in hospital needing more aggressive treatment and i was on shift in the relavant dept then i would be attending to the case most probably. at work i hope the smucks who penny pinch give us the appropriate kit to handle these cases. the last time i saw appropriate kit to handle such stuff and tried them on was probably 6y ago and i have never once set my eyes on such kit again since then.

ps: i am no expert on antiviricidals, just mentioning stuff that i think is right! i wouldnt want to be a GP now when every Tom !!!!!! and Harry will run in at the drop of a hat thinking they have contracted swine flu.

hermanmunster_3

bubblesmoney wrote: »

the normal masks arent much good against viruses. they arent even good for the likes of TB which is a bacterium (just mentioning this for the general public as am sure you know that already).

also i dont think alcohol gel is any protection against virulent / resilient viruses. chlorhex spray might be a better option i think as it is a viricidal and useful against resilient viruses like hep B. although i dont know about there effectiveness against influenza viruses i admit. but since hep B is a very resilient and infective virus and has survived in experiments upto 2y in dust particles and still been active wrt infectivity, i assume if it kills that then it would be good enough for influenza viruses for hand cleaning purposes.

chlorhex 0.5% spray might be useful but 2% (70% alcohol based and not the aqeous based one) might be a better option although i dont know if it comes in a spray version.

for that matter the alcohol gel is useless against c diff (spores) diarrhoea as well since you mention diarrhoea cases needing to be seen on your home visits.

just mentioning the chlorhex because you mentioned alcohol gel. i am not buying any of it (masks or spray or anything else) myself at home even though if a really sick patient arrived in hospital needing more aggressive treatment and i was on shift in the relavant dept then i would be attending to the case most probably. at work i hope the smucks who penny pinch give us the appropriate kit to handle these cases. the last time i saw appropriate kit to handle such stuff and tried them on was probably 6y ago and i have never once set my eyes on such kit again since then.

ps: i am no expert on antiviricidals, just mentioning stuff that i think is right! i wouldnt want to be a GP now when every Tom !!!!!! and Harry will run in at the drop of a hat thinking they have contracted swine flu.

I think the influenza is more infective in droplet format - then so is SRSV (very nasty when not in droplet....:o) - basically I think we'll have to manage with wat we've got and what is practical - the irritating bit of the advice is that the patients are more likely to be seen at home - far more tricky to ensure that they don;t leave snotty tissues around and frankly you wouldn;t want to wash your hands in some of the bathrooms..... I'm going to try and set aside time at the practice to see just suspected flu cases - we;ll see how it goes anyway. I presume the first cases will be Manflu anyway ..... ooooooooo norty me:rotfl:

Davesnave

mizzbiz wrote: »

Why?

This question has been bugging me all day...... I can think of some sinister reasons (like keeping deaths in the news deflects attention from bd government) but I'd like to know why they would tell us that masks dont work?

I think the two doctors on here have already given some background and, to the extent that they have disagreed, shown that there are no absolute answers on this. However, it is known that transmission is partly based on the presence of droplets in the air, and that hospital staff treating highly contagious patients, use masks (meeting the relevant standards) as a barrier method to avoid inhaling those droplets. Patients are usually given masks too, to avoid projecting droplets via coughing, sneezing etc.

The general public are, at present, largely unaware of the different types of masks, or the fact that virtually all become useless after absorbing moisture from breathing etc. This means that anyone using one would need to replace it frequently; say after 4-6 hours.

On TV, the Mexicans were shown giving out masks to all and sundry; something which would be likely to invoke 'expectations' in our own population. The Mexican masks were, as others have said, of a type that is virtually useless, so our government would be quite right in saying that mass distribution like that isn't effective. However, another reason they might push this line is simply that they don't have any effective, or partially effective masks to give out! Any that they do have will be reserved, quite rightly, for front line staff.

Hope that eases your puzzlement. As someone who has looked into this a little bit, I have my own thoughts, which I'm trying to keep to myself. However, I agree with what Dr hermanmunster's implies; that some people's lack of attention to basic hygiene, rather than the lack of masks, may spread this further than it might otherwise go.