I tried taking a video to demonstrate the issues, but I seem to have hung the headset. I think the Quest probably just can’t do Mozilla Hubs with adequate performance.
It has no trouble at all with similar environments in native apps, so again I wonder if WebVR is to blame.
EDIT: Honestly I wish I could get a video of the truly comedic amount of problems this has caused the headset. First I got a dialog that “Oculus System” had stopped responding, then the dialog separated into two pieces at a jaunty angle to each other and the display froze. Then I tapped the power button, and got a dialog asking if I wanted to power off the headset, but I was unable to click any buttons. One of the controllers seemed to be tracking inverted from reality somehow (pointed along the opposite vector in VR from how the real controller was pointed.) The other one was sort of gently orbiting.
Honestly, I have found VR to be a pretty buggy experience overall, but this is definitely the worst behavior I have ever seen from this platform. It’s pretty funny.
I finally made it into one of the rooms. I suspect I’m having performance issues? The tutorial room had 4 avatars and very few objects, and loaded fairly promptly. The other environments are more complex with more people in them. I’ve finally gotten into one of them, but it’s … bad. Audio is almost unusable. A lot of objects are failing to render. Tracking is hopeless. Movement is impossible.
I suppose I could try rebooting the headset and see if anything improves.
I am trying to use Hubs through Oculus Quest. So far I am extremely unimpressed. If I manage to enter one of the non-tutorial rooms without a hang, I might get slightly more impressed, but the audio is also pretty crap for me. Lots of weird static and glitchiness. Sometimes when I turn my head I lose tracking and the world jitters. I think WebVR is not a good substitute for native VR apps.
EDIT: Ok, I rebooted the headset (and switched from the Mozilla browser, “Firefox Reality”, to the native browser), and it seems to be working smoothly now. Not sure what the cause was of the issues before.
Most or all the 24-hour grocery stores here (bay area) have converted to having closing hours, as far as I know, to help them deal with the logistical problems caused by overwhelming demand. You might expect this to happen in your area too, at some point.
Beware, some of the very thin bare-looking copper wire you will find is “magnet wire”, which is actually coated in a thin layer of clear insulation.
Listing / summarizing some things I’ve seen elsewhere:
This general summary post by Sarah Constantin: https://srconstantin.github.io/2020/03/27/home-care-mild-COVID19.html
A post by SC specifically on “non-invasive ventilation”, meaning CPAP and BiPAP machines (which some people may already have at home), with positive conclusions: https://srconstantin.github.io/2020/03/20/non-invasive-ventilation.html
A document by Matt Bell with information about chloroquine phosphate / hydroxychloroquine: https://docs.google.com/document/d/160RKDODAa-MTORfAqbuc25V8WDkLjqj4itMDyzBTpcc/
One of the most intriguing things I saw was about “proning”: https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/proning-nonintubated/
The author of that post is Josh Farkas, a pulmonologist (i.e. lung specialist) and assistant professor of critical care and pulmonary disease (i.e. lung disease.)
“Prone” here means a face-down lying position, the opposite of “supine” which means face-up. The author says “Typically we prone intubated patients.” From context, I am reading “we” to mean his hospital / department, and “prone” to mean “rotate into the prone position for 6-18 hours per day.” The commonality of this practice seems to vary among hospitals.
The post, however, is a discussion of proning for awake, non-intubated patients, and concludes that it appears safe and effective. There is a lot of uncertainty around how effective it is, but it looks to me like, if you have pneumonia and hospital treatment is not available to you, there is some evidence that—perhaps counterintuitively—you will breathe better lying on your belly, vs. on your back.
(The main counterpoint I have seen to this is that frequently moving around and changing positions is best. I can’t tell whether the post is largely about patients who are too out-of-it to do that. I have seen it suggested that, if you’re able, sitting up is better than lying down (I have no cite handy for this.) There seems to be overall agreement, at least, on this one point: lying stationary on your back for long periods of time is NOT good when you have lung problems.)
I was under the impression that loss of sense of smell was primarily happening to people who take zinc intranasally. (I don’t have numbers handy.)
My impression was that the effect of the zinc was supposed to be on the virus (or the virus’s interaction with your cells), not on the body. Which (if true) would seem to imply that prophylactic use shouldn’t cause adaptation.
This paper appears to be a discussion of a Cochrane review from 2011, and supports prophylactic use (and also generally supports use, and provides more info):
The 2011 version of the Cochrane review in question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21328251 / http://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/14651858.CD001364.pub3
(Irritatingly, there have been a number of subsequent versions of the Cochrane review, but several of them have been withdrawn, for reasons that are hard for me to interpret, although one at least involved an accusation of plagiarism from another meta-review on the same topic. It feels to me like there may be some kind of political fight over ownership of this Cochrane review.)
ALSO, while looking through Cochrane reviews, I found this one in favor of Vitamin C for the common cold: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4/full
Thanks, I believe that article is great advice and I fully endorse it—I saw it a few days ago but never came back here and updated my comment.
Please apply the Coronavirus tag to this post.
Yeah, I think something at the government (or google/facebook) level would be a lot more effective. (Of course, people might have some qualms. China already did it, of course, and it’s mandatory—but that’s China.)
Yeah, agreed overall. I would not want to discourage literally our only source of direct data on this from doing it again. But ugh, why can’t everyone in the entire world please be like, significantly more careful about everything, all the time? (Preceding sentence is rhetorical and is me making fun of myself for making unreasonable demands.)
Note that “survived as an [artificially-generated] aerosol” does not mean that aerosols are generated in substantial numbers in realistic scenarios, nor does it say anything about how infectious the aerosol route is. (Also note that the “3 hour” figure in the preprint’s original abstract was grossly misleading; the preprint has been updated to remove it. The real figure implied by their data is longer.)
Thanks, I am not best pleased about relying on data from a paper that turns out to have been so sloppy. (I guess a rush was understandable under the circumstances, but I think checking all the calculations twice was also arguably imperative under the circumstances! And the misleading abstract was just dumb.)
See here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/B9qzPZDcPwnX6uEpe/coronavirus-justified-practical-advice-summary?commentId=LuJRfhrNhu4aBanQn
There are at least two attempts I’m aware of to do almost exactly this, surely more that I’m not aware of, plus some attempts to do other modeling (like, using people’s tracks from fitness apps, so they don’t have to install a new app.)
I think it’s going to be really unlikely to get enough people to use something like this to be useful, but I’d love to be wrong. If you want to help I’m happy to direct you to them.
Everything I’ve seen so far seems to suggest that copper oxide is still anti-microbial, but I haven’t really attempted to research this, so take that for what it’s worth (which is little.) (I’ve actually become curious whether having it on my hands—which are visibly turning a bit blue-green where they rub against the copper—might have further antimicrobial benefits. But this is idle speculation I do not intend to do anything with.)
FWIW, I started taking Vitamin D without measuring my blood levels after reading https://www.gwern.net/Longevity#vitamin-d . I take 2000 IU/day; the NIH site says the “tolerable upper intake level” is 4,000 IU, so I think I have pretty good margins. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional
Some notes / proposed additions or clarifications:
The #1 hazard noted about copper tape turned out to be cutting yourself on the edge of the tape while applying it (4 independent reports I’m aware of, including myself.) Maybe worth mentioning.
The 24-hour figure from the abstract of the paper about virus survival is misleading (all those numbers reflected the time of the last datapoint they saw virus in, notwithstanding the time of the first virus-free datapoint.) Those numbers (and the whole abstract) were all removed in v2 of the paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v2.full.pdf—you may want to update the link in the post.) So “viable virus could be detected up to 24 hours on cardboard” actually means that it dropped below detectability somewhere in the 24-48h window. The half-life estimation graphs were also made much larger and easier to read in v2; eyeballing the graph, the cardboard number looks to have a median of around 24h, but a distribution that extends outward closer to 36h or 48h. (Although, as you say, this is depending on the concentrations they were using; the half-life, which I believe was reported correctly, is the more important figure.)
On vitamin-D, if you haven’t seen this, someone found a meta-analysis that sort of suggests a benefit even for people with adequate blood levels, if you squint a little bit. (I believe it was a subgroup analysis that showed this, with the subgroup being “taking it daily/weekly, rather than as a bolus”. Which does seem to match how anybody self-supplementing would take it.) https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583
I think this doesn’t quite change everything, for the following reasons:
Even if long-term immunity is unlikely, short-term immunity will push this back towards the flu category, where most people are not getting it acutely at the same time. This will significantly improve the healthcare situation vs what we’re seeing in the pandemic phase.
Diseases evolve towards increased spread, which usually involves evolving towards reduced lethality / severity. If this becomes endemic it’s likely to do the same.
If it turns out that this does become a severe endemic disease, there will be a lot of pressure on the development of a vaccine, much more so than has been true for human coronaviruses in the past (when they were much closer to being mostly a nuisance, and included in the general “common cold” category.) Even if long-term immunity is unlikely, we can still improve the situation like we currently do with influenza, giving people periodic boosters based on the current circulating strains.
This is a fairly late update, but closing the loop on this: I believe the 3-10% number ended up being the secondary attack rate among households where the infected person was isolated after diagnosis. So that’s an estimate of the rate of transmission during extended close contact before symptoms/diagnosis, not after, which makes more sense. I assume that extended close contact with a symptomatic infected person will result in very likely transmission.