Do N95 masks protect against Covid-19? At first, we were told they offered no protection, then we were told they offer limited protection. With the N95 being the main choice for front line health workers and considering the high number of those health workers that have contracted the virus, indications are they are not that effective.
Could a modified snorkel mask be a better alternative? Fitted with a virus filter where the snorkel attaches, the mask would offer complete protection of eyes, nose, and mouth. Because they are designed to go underwater, they could be worn right into a decontamination shower at the end of each shift. Once removed they could be cleaned further and reused over and over. Further modification by connecting a pressurized air supply to the snorkel would give the mask a positive pressure, keeping the virus from entering the mask the same way negative pressure rooms keep the virus in. At a retail cost as low as $50.00 they are an affordable solution to make up for the N95 backlog and effectiveness.
The hydro-code in Canada is based on safety and common sense, but all that goes out the window when it comes to trees. After all, to be safe, common sense would suggest that no tree should be planted near an overhead powerline when its height at maturity could cause contact with the power line. Also, all existing trees near major overhead power lines should be cut down when possible if their hight gets to a point where it would come into contact with the power lines should it fall over.
Despite safety and common sense, governments continue to purposely plant new trees on boulevards, directly under power lines. Whatever the reasoning, save the planet or being green, the benefit is more than offset out by the fleets of diesel spewing trucks needed to constantly trim them. The cost of constant trimming also adds to the bottom line when it comes to our hydro bills.
Our obsession with trees has gotten out of control. In Toronto even cutting down or trimming a tree on your own property requires a permit. Anyone cutting down a tree without a permit, face fines and public shaming equal to that of serious crimes. In some cases, even when the roots threaten extensive damage to the foundation of a residence, permits to cut down the tree are denied.
There are over 85 billion trees in Ontario alone, those that put an insignificant few above safety and common sense need to reevaluate their priorities.
March 22, update. The infection rate of Covid-19 is unprecedented. It took less than 3 months to not only travel the globe but shut most of it down. Even with advanced knowledge and preparation time, Canada was still unable to stop a hand full of cases from infecting the entire country. With a good part of the country now shut down, the virus continues to spread at a rate that threatens to overrun the ability to medically treat everyone that needs it.
Until a cure is found, the only thing that could eventually stop Covid-19 is for a high percentage of the population to become infected and immune “contact immunity”. Public awareness and government strategies need to be done with this in mind. What percentage needed is unknown but the higher the better. If we can achieve this percentage with those shown most likely to survive, we will reduce the number of deaths.
That being said, as China seems to be finally getting control over its outbreak I find their numbers don’t support my theory. The number of cases they reported is far too low to create a high enough percentage of the population with contact immunity to bring Covid-19 under control. The only thing that could explain this, is if millions of more people were unknowingly exposed and became immune, they could have been undetected because of showing little or no symptoms. This would mean the percentage of deaths and symptoms from those exposed to the virus is much lower than currently thought. Unless this is true, without a high enough percentage of the population with contact immunity, China remains a breeding ground for the virus. Reopening the country too fast or the introduction of a positive case in the future could set off another massive outbreak.
Regardless of what percentage of the population requires hospitalization the biggest problem facing most of the world at the moment is keeping their medical resources from being overrun with too many cases at once. If we are successful in “flattening the curve” as they call it (fewer infections over a set amount of time), we will slow down the rate of transmission, enabling medical facilities to be able to keep up with treating the sick, but it will also increase the length of the outbreak. What took 3 months for China to bring under control could take until the end of this summer or even the end of the year. The longer time, unfortunately, also makes it even more likely for the most vulnerable to become infected. With this in mind, “Social hibernation” (not leaving your home or having any direct contact with other people outside) may be the best means of survival for those most at risk.
Who is considered most at risk of dying from Covid-19? Analyzing reliable data now is as important as treating the sick. Last week, data indicated it was the elderly or those with underlying conditions, especially respiratory. Now we are hearing of younger people being put on respirators. This is where the fast analysis of mountains of current data comes in. Is there a common denominator/s amongst fatalities? Does smoking, vaping or drinking put you at a higher risk. What about immunity to previous disease, demographics, iron levels, glucose levels, along with thousands of other possibilities. Being able to do an accurate self-risk analysis is crucial for individuals to decide between social distancing and social hibernation.
March 13, 2020, due to Covid-19 the government has just announced a partial shutdown of the Country. Schools until April 2020 and sporting events until June 2020 to name a few. The public perception seems to be that the worst of this disease will be over in several months and things will go back to normal, but with the development of vaccine possibly a year or more away, there is nothing to stop the rapid spreading of the disease again, as soon as the closures are lifted. Can we keep the Country closed for a year, what about food, essential services, and the economy?
So what is the best way to deal with this problem? The key is in the 2 things that make this virus unique. The first is that it is highly contagious and easily transmitted. The second is that it is not fatal in the vast majority of the population. Until a cure is found the answer is to isolate as much as possible, the small percentage of the population that has conditions that may cause the disease to be fatal. The rest of the healthy population should be allowed to be naturally exposed to the virus as quickly as possible, but at a controlled rate that would not overwhelm our health care system for those that may need extra help recovering. Once a high percentage of the healthy population has built up a natural immunity to Covid-19, it would make it extremely difficult for the virus to remain active. Those people at high risk could then come out of isolation in relative safety.
So what do we do now? We are lucky in Canada as our health system is not already overwhelmed. The current closures should help keep it that way. The next step is to slowly start opening things to the healthy public and allowing the virus to spread at a controlled rate. Monitoring hospital capacity is crucial in how fast we open things up. Who we consider not healthy and should remain in isolation should be based on statistical information from other countries on mortality rates due to age, and underlining conditions. Results from some of these countries like China should be scrutinized for accuracy.
If you are part of the healthy population you need to make a decision on your strategy. Do you try to hide from what may turn out to be inevitable or do you allow yourself to be infected at a time the emergency ward of the hospital is not overrun and can help you if you need them? After all, giving your immune system a workout now may help you get through Covid-2?.
Have you ever been in a hurry and after rushing through the supermarket and getting home, you realize the expiration date on what you just bought for dinner passed 3 months ago? At almost any given store now, you can find expired food or food that is long past the best before date still selling on the shelves at full price. Enough is enough, its time for the government to impose regulations that will not only protect the consumer but stop the wasting of food and even help with the hunger problem we have in this country.
The “best before” and “expiration” dates on packaging is a problem that’s been driving consumers crazy for years. Every item you pick up is a new game of “Where’s Waldo”. Location, small font size, lack of contrast with the background, or written in a long code the CIA couldn’t crack are some of the biggest problems. Sometimes the date doesn’t say if it is the best before or the expiration and on top of that, a lot of people still aren’t really sure of the difference (the best before is the date of the item’s optimum freshness, but many items are still perfectly good and safe to eat beyond this date, until they reach their expiration date).
If the government were to start phasing in regulations, everyone would benefit. Heres what I would suggest:
Every grocery item that is required to currently have a best before or expiry date should be required to have both
The best before and expiry date to be located on the front or main side of the item.
The size of the font for the dates should be no less than 0.3 cm high.
The dates should be written in black on a white background or similar contrast to make it easily readable
The dates should all be written in the same format: MMM DD YYYY
This is an example of how the above products would look under the new regulations
So how would the new labeling help?
It would make it easier for supermarkets to keep stock rotated on the shelves and harder for them to try saving money by not rotating.
Supermarkets would also be pressured to sell items that had passed the best before date but still before the expiration dates at a reduced price, making it more affordable to those on a tight budget.
Consumers would have an easier time finding and being more aware of the dates. This would also make it harder for supermarkets to sell expired goods.
Those consumers that could afford it would be more likely to donate to food banks when an item in their cupboard passed the best before date but had not yet expired.
Less food waste.
You may it unethical for people that can’t afford it, to eat food that has passed the best before date but keep in mind, the taste of food is relative to how hungry you are. The best-tasting meal I ever had was not in a restaurant but on day 3 of a survival course with no food. It consisted of 3 bites of wild game meat, burnt on an open fire, with no seasoning, that had fallen in the dirt.
