Het grote SARS-CoV-2 topic #1120 Waarheen leidt de weg?

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:07 schreef Noek het volgende:

[..]

Butt naked zelfs, armen en/of benen zijn niet genoeg.

Ik had teveel vit D. Was wel na Indonesië en ik ben vrij strikt met suppletie want eet plantaardig.
Dus ik moest om de dag bijslikken.

Zijn er goede bronnen dat vit D een rol speelt in het corona verhaal?

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:12 schreef Tijn het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn steeds meer aanwijzingen dat mensen met lage vitamine D-levels een hogere kans hebben om meer last van covid te hebben. Dit is wel een aardige site waar de onderzoeken worden bijgehouden: https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 19:55 schreef Predator40 het volgende:

[..]

alleen is het niet zo gezond.....

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:15 schreef Hamzoef het volgende:

[..]

Misschien een naïeve vraag, maar waarom delen overheden dan niet massale pillen met vitamine D3 uit?

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:18 schreef Mortaxx het volgende:

[..]

Wat een nonsens. Is de natuurlijke manier van vitamine d aanmaak. Maar blijf vooral je pillen slikken

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:19 schreef DonDruiper het volgende:
Wordt het niet eens tijd om de ouderen te gaan isoleren?

[ afbeelding ]

Ik bedoel.. we hebben bijvoorbeeld ouderenuurtjes in de supermarkt ingevoerd, maar ik zie opa en oma gewoon samen achter de rollator om 13:00 uur boodschappen doen.

Het probleem is dat het gros van de 60 plussers gewoon doorgaat met het leven zoals ze altijd gewend waren.
"Dood gaan we binnenkort toch wel"

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:20 schreef Xqtress het volgende:

[..]

Ik probeer het nog eens, dit keer met een andere link. Je bewering klopt niet.
https://www.kwf.nl/standpunten/vitamine-d

quote:

Skip the Useless Covid-19 Rules, Please

A tangle of recommendations — some not even helpful — is contributing to pandemic fatigue.

By Faye Flam
6 December 2020, 14:00 CET
Not helpful.

Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for the Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today, Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.

A clutter of unhelpful pandemic rules is wearing people down. One-way systems in stores, outdoor mask mandates, ceaselessly cleaning groceries and packages — should these things be our top priorities for limiting the spread of Covid-19?

Harvard’s Joseph Allen is an associate professor of exposure assessment science and one of the world’s experts on why some indoor spaces are worse than others for spreading viruses. Like other experts, he agrees that poorly ventilated indoor sites are the prime spreading ground for SARS-CoV-2. So the longer people spend in any indoor space with other people, the greater the risk they pose to themselves and others.

I asked him: Wouldn’t it be better if we did away with the one-way system so that people could dispatch with their grocery shopping quickly, without having to endure long waits behind price-comparers or other slowpokes? The answer is yes. Eliminating those annoying arrows would probably make shopping safer as well as less stressful.

Businesses are, of course, free to impose their own rules, but it’s unlikely many would knowingly make shopping less safe. The fault lies with the public health community for being too shy in talking about which rules don’t help, leaving us with a tangle of rules and recommendations — and pandemic fatigue.

State rules have an even bigger effect on our lives and are often thrown at people with no transparency. My state of Rhode Island has recently become one of the worst five states for per-capita infections, despite getting praise from Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at the end of the summer for our strict rules and good compliance. With cases already climbing in late November, Governor Gina Raimondo held a press conference where she scolded citizens for not following the rules.

Soon afterwards, a talk radio host voiced what I was thinking. Who are these people filling up the hospitals? Where do they live? What kind of work do they do? Do we have any idea how they got the virus? And which rules, exactly, were they breaking?

As risk communication consultant Peter Sandman has said early in the pandemic, a public health policy that people don’t follow is a failed policy. That means even a really solid, science-based set of rules can fail if it’s not communicated with a clear rationale.

In Massachusetts, governor Charlie Baker has focused his latest round of rules on outdoor mask wearing — something that many experts have said is unlikely to help since the virus is extremely unlikely to be transmitted over distances outside. The British Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has deemed outdoor mask wearing of negligible benefit.

Baker’s ruling prompted Harvard epidemiologist Julia Marcus to suggest in Boston.com that he’s playing pandemic theater. “Arbitrary public health rules are a way to break the public’s trust, which is essential to keeping people engaged in public health efforts,” she told a reporter for the site. “I think a mandate like this — that people know is arbitrary — is going to do more to reduce trust than it will to reduce infections.”

Harvard’s William Hanage, who studies infectious disease dynamics, told me that people don’t need more rules. They need more information about how the virus is transmitted so they can take steps to avoid it. “When you phrase things in terms of rules, it leads people to try to come up with ways to get around those rules,” he says.

Rules can become a form of misinformation. The rules in many states seem to suggest that walking outside is dangerous and eating in a restaurant is safe, but Hanage says the truth is the other way around.

Baker has justified his outdoor mask mandate by saying it sends a message. The message I heard was that that the rules are not chosen for our health and welfare but to make our political leaders look like they are doing something.

Rules should only be decreed along with evidence for their benefit, argued statistician and risk communication expert David Spiegelhalter in a piece for The Guardian: “Too often, the message is shaped by communication professionals working to ensure the greatest number of people ‘get the message’ rather than thinking about how to present the evidence so the greatest number of people can understand it, trust it, and then decide for themselves.”

I hear from diverse readers who want to do the right thing, but need to know where to focus their efforts. A farmer in Florida recently wrote to me about the pandemic fatigue that’s affecting him and his neighbors. “What happens here is that we get worn out, beaten down and overloaded such that no matter how well-intentioned we are we are prone to latch onto something wrong.”

“So I think people here get it that it's serious … they like their neighbors and don't want them dead,” he wrote. But they’re wondering how much effort to put into disinfecting groceries and kitchen counters — something that some media outlets recommended in the spring, as well as wearing gloves at the gas station, disinfecting credit cards and letting packages sit outside for a few days before opening them.

Harvard disease expert Hanage says that the science to date points to the primary risk coming from what he calls the three C’s — close contact, closed spaces and crowds. He says in Japan, where they’ve had few Covid-19 deaths, people are advised to avoid these — not just to wear masks in these situations but to limit them or avoid them altogether.

One place where the informational clutter can get sorted out is the CDC. In an encouraging trend, the agency is starting to make recommendations by explaining why they’re likely to improve public health. The agency cited good reasons people should avoid traveling for the holidays, including many combinations of those three C’s. They’ve just issued new guidelines recommending masks when people are indoors outside their homes or cannot stay more than six feet away from other people. And they’ve just shortened the quarantine period for people exposed to the virus from 14 days to 10, or seven if you get a test at the end. Again, the rationale was explained — some cases can incubate for two full weeks, but most people develop symptoms sooner. A shorter quarantine period can still cut down on transmission and will get better compliance.

It would be wonderful if the CDC could also start telling us which rules and recommendations are unlikely to work, so we can all concentrate on the ones that will. There’s some denial out there, but there’s also enormous curiosity and willingness to help. It’s a resource we can’t afford to keep squandering.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Faye Flam at fflam1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.net

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:22 schreef Mortaxx het volgende:

[..]

Jawel zijn zonnebanken met speciale lampen hiervoor.

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:22 schreef Elan het volgende:

[..]

Post nu eens de besmettingsgevallen per leeftijdscategorie, dit is natuurlijk weinig relevante data aangezien algemeen bekend is dat ouderen er vaker ziek van worden.

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:16 schreef Xqtress het volgende:

[..]

Kun je bij een teveel aan vit.D ook klachten hebben?

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:16 schreef Xqtress het volgende:
Kun je bij een teveel aan vit.D ook klachten hebben?

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:25 schreef DonDruiper het volgende:

[..]

Lekker belangrijk als je besmet wordt.

Het gaat erom dat we er voor moeten zorgen dat de ouderen en kwetsbaren niet besmet worden.

En aangezien die groep over het algemeen overal schijt aan heeft, moeten die tegen zichzelf in bescherming worden genomen.

Dus.. thuisisolatie voor een maand. Je laat je eten gewoon bezorgen. Wil je toch naar buiten, dan op eigen risico.

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:29 schreef Fred het volgende:

[..]

Ja, vaak gaat dat gepaard met een rode, geïrriteerde huid.

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:10 schreef erkel het volgende:

[..]

[..]

quote:

^{Bron: polifact}

No mask is 100% effective, but health care officials stress that face masks increase their effectiveness when combined with other measures, such as social distancing and regular hand washing.

quote:

Op zondag 6 december 2020 20:42 schreef chratnox het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat het punt wat @:DonDruiper aanstippeld wel belangrijk is, en daar is het wel vaker over gegaan. Als je als volledige maatschappij er alles aan doet om de mensen met zwakkere gezondheid te ontzien, is het natuurlijk niet logisch als die mensen alsnog het op gaan zoeken. Daar mogen best vragen over gesteld worden.

Als ik op vrijdagavond boodschappen doe kom ik regelmatig ouderen tegen die 'gezellig' samen boodschappen aan 't doen zijn. Vaak zijn dat ook degenen die totaal geen moeite doen om afstand te houden.

Hoe langer deze situatie duurt, hoe prangender die vraag wordt.