#Breaking One of the two individuals who has tested positive for coronavirus is a student at the University of York, a university spokesman said pic.twitter.com/YwSkcH4XFV

— PA Media (@PA) February 1, 2020

Piece in The Times today suggesting face masks are ineffective and cloth ones could even increase the risk of developing cold / flu (new or old).

---

A week or so ago an expert said that a mask was useful if you already had a bug as it reduced the chances of spreading the virus but could be worse than useless as a precautionary measure because the mask material gets damp and viruses can adhere to the surface.

---

I am not wearing them. My understanding is that they work but only if used right and regularly disposed of. My main precaution is avoidance.

 

---

 That's basically what the Times article says. 

---

Are you holed up at home and not going out? I don’t know where you live but the chances of infection right now from even using the Tube in London must be vanishingly small.

---

No I still go out but have cut back.

• No going into city centres or crowded venues


• Shopping at times when not many people are about


• No social gatherings

 

I've also bought enough supplies such that I can completely isolate myself for several weeks if necessary.

 

---

Well I'm off into town for the football (circa 3,000 gathered together), then some shopping, a pint, then back home on the bus. That would appear to violate all your pointers!

(Plus the wife works at York Uni).

 

 

---

I thought part of the benefit of a mask was that it avoided accidental touching of the nose or mouth.

---

This is also true.

However I feel the same can be achived with regular hand washing and alcohol gel when out.

 

---

I read somewhere that gel is far less effective than soap and water. True??

---

Yes I think it's true.

I only use the gel when I'm out and about after touching a surface.

Soap and water when at home.

 

---

New paper suggests R0 is 4.0

That's really really bad.

I should add it is completely inconsistent with the most recent data.

---

”New paper”?

---

---

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.27.20018952v1

---

Thanks. I feel that may be a little premature based on current evidence.

---

If they are right (R0=4.08 and a mortality rate of 6.5%), that would be worrying, but I don't know how accurate their modelling is, it could be well off the mark.

I also think that R0 is on the high side, will point out there are other studies which put it at much lower values. But reporting this for completeness.

As I say my own crude analysis of the most recent data would seem to suggest an R0 of 4.0 (at least at this current time) is a little inconsistent.

 

---

The mortality rate is very believable, the R0 a little less so.

It may simply be out of date, because R0 could easily have been 4 a few weeks back.

 

---

Their cut off date was 25 Jan.

It was notable that there were more people wearing masks in York city centre today. I counted probably about 8 on a one hour trip around town (normally zero to 1). Had my pint at The Phoenix, just about opposite That Hotel.

Credit to Chester FC fans, who were numbering nearly 700 at the match.

---

Polynomial fit works better than an exponential. Good sign.

---

Reports that bodies are being sent from hospitals to crematoria without being identified.

---