Saturday, April 04, 2020


Two years before coronavirus, CDC warned of a coming pandemic



Alexander Nazaryan National Correspondent,Yahoo News•April 2, 2020

WASHINGTON — Two years ago, some of the nation’s top public health officials gathered in an auditorium at Emory University in Atlanta to commemorate the 1918 influenza pandemic — also known as “the Spanish flu” — which had killed as many as 40 million people as it swept the globe.

Hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the daylong conference on May 7, 2018, was supposed to mine a calamity from the past for lessons on the present and warnings for the future. There were sessions titled “Nature Against Man” and “Innovations for Pandemic Countermeasures.” Implicit was the understanding that while the 1918 pandemic was a singular catastrophe, conditions in the 21st century were ideal for another outbreak.
And since there are six billion more people on the planet today than there were in 1918, when the global population was only 1.8 billion, a pathogen that is a less efficient killer than the Spanish flu could nevertheless prove more deadly in absolute terms.

Long before the coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China, and then soon spread to nearly every country on Earth, the 2018 conference offered proof that epidemiologists at the CDC and other institutions were aware that a new pandemic was poised to strike. They discussed troubling developments. They pointed to obvious gaps in the nation’s defenses. They braced themselves for what they feared was coming.

“Are we ready to respond to a pandemic?” asked Dr. Luciana Borio, who was head of the since dissolved global health section of the National Security Council.

Dr. Borio answered her own question: “I fear the answer is no.” She was discussing the influenza but could have just as easily been referencing the coronavirus, given the similarities between the two infections.


Among the organizers of the conference was Dr. Daniel Jernigan, who heads the CDC’s flu division. He later hosted a webinar entitled “100 Years Since 1918: Are We Ready for the Next Pandemic?” Viewed today, that presentation comes across as a disturbing preview of what the entire world is facing in 2020, with close to a million people infected with the coronavirus and more than 44,000 dead.
Dr. Daniel Jernigan. (Courtesy of the CDC)

Aside from Jernigan’s chillingly prophetic presentation, there were plenty of warnings during the May 7 symposium that federal and state authorities were not taking pandemic response seriously enough.
Top government officials gave these warnings mere steps from the nation’s public health headquarters, raising questions about why that warning was not heeded, given how unambiguous it was. “Our angst is getting higher and higher,” Jernigan said as the conference came to a close, adding that “our leadership is getting a lot of concerns.” (Neither the CDC nor Jernigan responded to requests for comment.)

Other public health officials at the event worried that even after outbreaks of SARS (2003), the swine flu (2009) and Ebola (2014), a cavalier attitude towards infectious disease pervaded. “There often is a feeling on the part of policymakers we’re talking to in Washington — but also in other states — that something magical will happen when an emergency risk occurs, that we’ll just be able to flip a switch and we’ll be able to respond as best we could,” said former CDC associate director John Auerbach, who now heads the Trust for America’s Health, a nonprofit organization focused on medical preparedness.

Auerbach said that based on the organization’s latest report, it was clear that “we have some vulnerability” to a pandemic on the state level. Among the concerns the trust found was that only eight states and the District of Columbia had a paid sick leave law, meaning that millions of Americans were bound to continue working even after having fallen ill.

The continuing lack of a coherent federal paid sick leave policy has been underscored by the coronavirus outbreak.
Patients wait in line for a COVID-19 test at Elmhurst Hospital 
Center in New York City, March 25, 2020. (John Minchillo/AP)

Auerbach described conversations he’d had on Capitol Hill about pandemic preparedness, and the diminishing funds devoted to that end. “You know, don’t worry about that,” lawmakers were apparently telling him. “If we’re not funding that at the federal level, the governors and the local officials will increase the funding and compensate” for federal cuts, he was apparently assured.

Except that wasn’t true, Auerbach said, pointing to statistics that showed both states and local governments cutting public health funding, potentially leaving the nation without the necessary defenses at any level of government.

Two years later, cities and states are begging Washington for help, and Americans are wondering how a nation fond of touting its health system as one without equal could have found itself so poorly prepared for a deadly plague.

President Trump has called the current coronavirus outbreak an “unforeseen enemy” that “came out of nowhere.” He is correct in the narrow sense that SARS-CoV-2, as the pathogen is formally known, is a novel coronavirus, which means that its precise genomic sequence — the blueprint for its proteins that batter the human body — have not been glimpsed before. Existing armor in the form of vaccines could therefore not protect against the assault.

But the coronavirus was hardly unforeseen. In fact, experts like Jernigan have been warning about a new pandemic for years.

Jernigan’s webinar — which was not delivered during the May 7 seminar, but on an unspecified later date — was co-hosted by Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. She is a member of Trump’s coronavirus task force, but her role was minimized after she made dire warnings about the pandemic.
Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for 
Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. 
(Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
Despite his hesitations about the seriousness of the coronavirus threat, Trump has now largely conformed to Messonnier’s concerns about the coronavirus, which causes a disease called COVID-19. That disease has killed about 4,000 Americans.

The coronavirus attacks the lungs directly; the flu is an infection of the upper respiratory tract. But while the viruses act differently, they spread from body to body with similar quickness, largely through close contact with sickened individuals, often by sneezing and coughing.

In recent weeks, interest in the 1918 influenza has understandably spiked, with people eager to understand what can be learned from that catastrophic outbreak.

Dr. Jernigan was making those very warnings two years ago, as is apparent from the 34-slide presentation he delivered in 2018 on the 1918 pandemic.

That presentation is readily available online, and has been for the last two years. It is not clear, however, if anyone from the White House has viewed the presentation. If they did, they would glimpse a reality that has become all too familiar to many Americans.

One slide warns that “human-adapted viruses” that originated in animals “can cause efficient and sustained transmission.” Though he was speaking specifically of influenza viruses, the same is true of the coronavirus, which was also zoogenic, and is believed to have originated in a wet market in the southeastern Chinese city of Wuhan.

Jernigan’s presentation then includes a discussion of how the 1918 spread, summarizing various well-known aspects of that era that exacerbated the pandemic: World War I, crowded cities and a lack of understanding of how viruses work.
The St. Louis Red Cross Motor Corps during the influenza
 epidemic of 1918. (Universal History Archive/Universal
 Images Group via Getty Images)

The most relevant portions of Jernigan’s presentation come near the end, in a section presciently titled “The Next Pandemic: Are We Ready?”

Jernigan came to a conclusion that has become common wisdom in recent weeks: that the nation was primed but not prepared for a pandemic. He describes factors that make a pandemic more likely, including a “more crowded, more connected world.” Two years later, the ease of commercial aviation would lead the coronavirus to spread from East Asia across the world.

Another concern for Jernigan was that “the worlds of humans and animals are increasingly converging,” especially as population growth results in deforestation, which makes zoogenic transmission more likely. China’s animal markets have also come under increased scrutiny, with some wanting them closed.

The presentation warned of “potential disruption” in supply chains of food, energy and medical supplies, as well as of the health care system itself. Those predictions appear to have been borne out in the United States, with governors pleading for respirators and hospital overcrowding leading to the construction of a coronavirus treatment facility in the middle of Central Park. There have also been runs on supermarkets, though wide-scale food shortages have not been reported.

Even more specific warnings follow, and seem especially haunting given the harrowing images that have emerged from hospitals in New York. “Need reusable respiratory protective devices,” Jernigan writes, in an apparent reference to the N95 masks that have become a treasured commodity for their role as a prophylactic against airborne viral droplets. Jernigan also recommends “better ventilator access,” anticipating what would be a major problem for cities like New York and states like Washington.
A body wrapped in plastic is unloaded from a refrigerated
 truck and handled by medical workers at the Brooklyn
 Hospital Center in New York City. (John Minchillo/AP)
“Healthcare system could get overwhelmed in a severe pandemic,” Jernigan writes, once again predicting accurately what has become the grim reality of the coronavirus pandemic.

And while he praises the advent of new vaccine technologies, he notes that it “takes too long to have vaccines available for pandemic response.” Trump initially promised that both vaccines and therapeutics would be quickly available, while public health officials pointed out that both are many months away.

Moving to a more global view, Jernigan argued that “most countries do not have robust pandemic plans and very few exercise response efforts.” That became clear when the coronavirus attacked nations like Italy and Iran, where the health systems became overwhelmed and thousands died.

A concluding slide summarized Jernigan’s main argument: “Efforts to improve pandemic readiness and response are underway, however, many gaps remain.”

The prevalent finding at the May 7 symposium on the 1918 pandemic was that it would be far more costly to ignore the lessons of that catastrophe than to institute the necessary measures to keep a new outbreak at bay.

“We know what to do,” said former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding. “We just have to do it.”

---30---




Should We be wearing face masks to protect against coronavirus? The CDC now says yes

April 4, 2020 By Elisabeth Buchwald and Jacob Passy

There is a growing movement to encourage face-mask usage

 in the U.S. AFP via Getty Images

Back when there were only few confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Surgeon General all pled with the public urging them not to wear face masks unless they were sick or caring for someone who was sick.

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that “CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth faced covering as an additional voluntary public health measure.” Trump himself said he does not plan on wearing a face mask.

“If you do choose to wear a face mask, wash your hands first,” said U.S. Surgeon General, Jerome Adams. He also cautioned not to touch your face while wearing a mask.

“The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N95 respirators,” Adams added. “Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders.”

The guidance on face masks has not yet been posted on the CDC’s site, who did not immediately respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment.

“The most important thing is the social distancing and washing your hands, and we don’t want people to get an artificial sense of protection, because they’re behind a mask,” Dr. Deborah Birx, a public health expert on the White House’s coronavirus response team, said during Thursday’s briefing ahead of the CDC’s recommendation.

“Remember, your eyes are not in the mask, so if you’re touching things and then touching your eyes you’re exposing yourself in the same way.”

There were 278,458 of cases of COVID-19 across America as of Saturday — and more than 102,000 people in New York State. Prior to Friday’s announcement New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio advised residents to cover their faces before heading outside.

“People who do not show symptoms may still be able to spread COVID-19. A face covering can help prevent you from spreading COVID-19 to other people, so you should wear one whenever you leave the home,” the New York City Department of Health said in an online statement. “A face covering will not protect you from infection, but it can help others.”

This comes amid a growing movement to encourage mask usage in the U.S., even as health-care professionals grapple a severe shortage of protective equipment, including face masks and gowns as they treat coronavirus patients.

On social media, the #Masks4All campaign was started by Jeremy Howard, a distinguished research scientist at the University of San Francisco and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global AI Council. The #Masks4All movement doesn’t just push for people to wear masks, but also to make their own face masks at home to ensure that health-care workers have access to supplies.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Howard said, “The senseless and unscientific push for the general public to avoid wearing masks” should rank among the worst missteps made by policy makers.

That perspective was echoed by George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention in an interview with Science magazine.

“The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren’t wearing masks,” Gao said.

“This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role — you’ve got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth,” Gao continued. “Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others.”

Multiple studies have indicated that people may display few symptoms but have the coronavirus, while others may be contagious before they begin to display symptoms. These asymptomatic individuals have complicated government efforts to contain the spread of the coronavirus across the globe.

Some previous research has concluded that face masks have helped reduce contagion by reducing droplets being sprayed into the air during flu season; another Japanese-based study says this works when paired with vaccination, not an option in this case. This study says N95 medical-grade masks do help filter viruses that are larger than 0.1 micrometers (One micrometer, um, is one millionth of a meter.) The coronavirus is 0.125 um.

Proponents of face masks also point to the anecdotal evidence from countries in East and Southeast Asia, including South Korea and Taiwan, that have been able to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus and flatten the curve more effectively than in countries like the U.S., Spain and Italy.



Mask usage is more ubiquitous in these countries in general as a hygienic practice even outside of instances of global disease outbreaks. “In all of these countries, all of which were hit hard by the SARS respiratory virus outbreak in 2002 and 2003, everyone is wearing masks in public,” Howard wrote.

Recently, some Western countries have required residents to wear face masks. The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bosnia-Herzegovina now require people to wear masks in public, while nearby Austria requires their use in grocery stores.

KK Cheng, a public-health expert and professor at the University of Birmingham in the U.K, said he wears a mask when he goes to the supermarket and supports Austria’s decision to mandate masks there.

“I think it’s a good idea because trips to the supermarket are the main exposure to the virus,” especially in areas where they are the only businesses that are open, he said.

The World Health Organization and the CDC continue to stand by their recommendations from earlier in the coronavirus outbreak. They argue that mask usage should be limited to people who have COVID-19 or may have contracted the illness and their caregivers, including health-care workers.

‘There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit.’— Dr. Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization’s top emergencies expert

“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit,” Dr. Michael Ryan, WHO’s top emergencies expert, said during a press conference Monday.

Similarly, the CDC still “does not recommend that people who are well wear a face mask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19.”

“You should only wear a mask if a health-care professional recommends it,” the CDC said in a statement online. “A face mask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected.”

But in a comment published in The Lancet, a medical publication, a group of researchers from Hong Kong argued that the lack of studies proving masks to be effective didn’t mean they weren’t.

“There is an essential distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence,” they wrote. “Face masks are widely used by medical workers as part of droplet precautions when caring for patients with respiratory infections. It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high-risk areas.”


While face masks may help protect people, they are hard to come by



In many countries, including the U.S., a shortage of masks has endangered doctors and nurses treating patients with COVID-19. Health-care professionals have warned that they may need to reuse masks as a result, which can reduce their effectiveness. Multiple fashion designers have even lent their services in making masks to combat this shortage.

“We have a massive global shortage,” Ryan said. “Right now, the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus, every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific. So we have to be very careful.”

A spokesman for the CDC noted that officials could reserve face masks for health-care workers, meaning they are less likely to be available for non-health care. “You may need to improvise a face mask using a scarf or bandana,” the CDC said in a post which was last updated on March 25. (Balaclavas may also provide some protection.)

Dr. Christian Schrock, an infectious disease doctor based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, set up a webpage showing how to make a DIY mask. You can also a watch a step-by-step tutorial based on his mask design methodology on YouTube.


N95 masks, however, are tighter-fitting than surgical masks and protect against small particles and large droplets, according to the CDC. These types of masks offer the most protection from viruses similar to coronavirus.

For health-care professionals who cannot be six feet apart from patients with COVID-19, there are few substitutes to N95 masks. Surgical masks, the CDC says, should be worn if N95 masks are “so limited that routinely practiced standards of care for wearing N95 respirators and equivalent or higher level of protection respirators are no longer possible.”

As a last resort if both surgical and N95 masks aren’t available, the CDC says it “may be necessary” for them to use homemade masks that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proponents of face-mask usage have suggested that people fashion their own protective gear. “A homemade DIY mask would be better than nothing,” in terms of limiting transmission of coronavirus, Cheng said.

It’s not clear whether people making masks at home should choose certain materials over others. “If the WHO and other authorities think it’s a good thing for the public to wear masks,” Cheng said health authorities around the world would likely investigate which materials offer the best protection for a DIY mask.

(This story was updated on April 3 with a statement by the CDC.)


Can homemade face masks help limit the spread of the coronavirus? Scientists can't agree, but here's what you need to know.

Gabby Landsverk,Hilary Brueck,Business Insider•April 3, 2020
 

A woman wears a stars and stripes bandana for a face mask,
 amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) fears, in Washington,
 U.S., April 2, 2020. Picture taken April 2, 2020
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters


The White House recommended on Friday that all Americans wear masks, and some US cities like Los Angeles and Laredo, Texas are fining people who don't cover their faces during the coronavirus pandemic.


But the public has also been urged to avoid buying medical masks because there is a global shortage, and healthcare workers, who are most exposed to the virus, need them.


Instead, it's been suggested that people make their own masks from fabric, or use a bandana or scarf wrapped around the mouth and nose. 


Here's what we know so far about effectiveness of various types of homemade masks to protect against coronavirus, and why it's so hard for experts to agree on whether we should wear them. 


The White House announced on Friday a nationwide recommendation that all Americans wear masks to help slow the spread of the novel coronavirus across the nation.

In Laredo, Texas, officials announced residents could be fined up to $1,000 for not wearing a mask or face covering in public. It's commonplace in countries like Japan, and in China, it's considered a civic duty.

But, until now, most Americans have been told to listen to the advice of the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who have repeatedly said that the public should not be buying masks — reluctant to give people a false sense of security from a face-covering that may not filter out all particles, and keen to protect the short supply of surgical masks for medical staff on the front lines who need them most

Healthcare workers are exposed to a much higher concentration of the virus, both in the form of patients coughing droplets and oxygen machines aerosolizing the virus — for example, when they're intubating patients — allowing infectious particles to linger in the air. Members of the public are much less likely to encounter particles of the virus in the air, particularly if everyone is avoiding interacting with others and washing their hands as recommended.

However, some experts say that, while masks may not do much to control the spread of the coronavirus, it may be better than no protection at all — particularly on people who think they're healthy but are, in fact, in the early stages of developing a coronavirus illness, unwittingly spreading the virus around when they go grocery shopping.

To protect the public but avoid shortages, officials are increasingly suggesting that people craft their own masks or face coverings out of scarves, bandanas, or t-shirts. And even healthcare workers have been told to use DIY masks "as a last resort."

But it's not clear just how effective those measures are against the novel coronavirus, and there's still a lot we don't understand about the virus, how it spreads, and what kinds of fabrics offer the best protection.
A cloth mask is much less protective than surgical or N95 masks, but it might be 'better than nothing' to stop droplets getting through, research has found

Research on masks' effectiveness against the coronavirus is, at best, inconclusive. Most of what we currently know about masks, from N95s to simple cloth barriers, is based on studies of the flu and other respiratory viruses.

It's unclear if the novel coronavirus is similar in the size of its particles, and the way it moves through the air, to other viruses, or entirely different.

Generally, research suggests surgical masks and N95 respirators are significantly more effective at preventing the spread of viral particles than cloth.

One 2015 study found that cloth masks only blocked 3% of particles, compared with medical masks (which stopped 56% of particles) and N95s (protective against 99.9% of particles, the study found). Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were significantly more likely to be infected with flu-like illness, the study found. A 2013 study found that cloth masks made from cotton T-shirts, pillowcases, or tea towels should be used only as a last resort — they only filtered out a third of the aerosols blocked by a surgical mask — though it was found to be "better than no protection."

Dr. You-Lo Hsieh, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who studies fiber engineering and polymer chemistry, who was not involved in either of those studies, has also found that viral particles are too small to be caught by most household cloth.
An employee with a face mask at a textile workshop in the
 Gamarra neighborhood of Lima, Peru, March 4, 2020.
AP Photo/Martin Mejia


"Common fabrics have pores too large for viruses, that are about 100 nanometer in diameter, and most airborne droplets that contain viruses," Hsieh told Business Insider via email. In contrast, the pore sizes of knitted fabrics are often measured in micrometers, which are 1000 times larger than nanometers. According to the textbook Physico-chemical aspects of Textile Coloration, cotton pores tend to exceed 10-20 micrometers, or 10,000 to 20,000 nanometers.

2008 study, however, concluded that while homemade masks may not offer as much protection as surgical masks or N95s, particularly against tiny aerosols, they could still reduce the transmissibility of viral particles by a small but significant amount.

That could be enough to make a difference, said Ben Cowling professor of epidemiology and a mask researcher at the University of Hong Kong's School of Public Health.

"The argument ... about everybody wearing a mask is not that it will prevent everyone from getting infected — it's that it will slow down transmission in the community a bit," Cowling previously told Business Insider. "That's already useful. Just to have even a small effect is useful."

In particular, experts believe masks could be useful, not for people trying to avoid the virus, but for people who already have it, given evidence that people infected with coronavirus can be contagious before they show symptoms. For that purpose, encouraging everyone to wear masks, even inefficient ones, could prevent people unaware that they're infected from spreading the disease in crowded areas such as grocery store lines or public transit, Cowling suggested.
Some DIY materials may be better than others at preventing particles from penetrating through the mask

Some homemade cloth masks may be more effective than others, depending on how tightly-woven the fabric is, and whether it's a good, tight fit.

2010 study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) tested how well tiny particles could penetrate different materials such as sweatshirts, cotton T-shirts, scarves, and towels.

Sweatshirts were found to offer slightly better protection than tees against the particles — blocking about 20-30% of particles compared to fewer than 14% from the T-shirt. Hanes brand sweatshirts were found to be the most effective in the test, blocking 43-60% of particles. Cotton towels were also found to be more protective than scarves, blocking about 34-40% of particles compared to 11-27% with scarves.

Towels and the Hanes sweatshirt were found to block a slightly higher percentage of particles than commercially available cloth masks.

All of these, though, were significantly less protective than an N95 mask. Researchers weren't able to conclude whether certain materials, such as cotton, polyester, or a blend, were generally more protective. And it's still not clear how any material might fare against the novel coronavirus.

Factors such as how often the materials have been worn or washed could also influence their effectiveness: surgical masks are designed to be single-use — disposed of after they may have come into contact with infectious particles. If a person is reusing their face mask without washing it, that could reduce its effectiveness.
The biggest problem with DIY masks: Unlike surgical masks, household fabrics can absorb viral particles

Textile engineer Emiel DenHartog, Associate Director of the Textile Protection and Comfort Center at North Carolina State University, studies how textiles protect people from chemical and biological threats.

He said "homemade masks may give more peace of mind than actual physical protection" against the novel coronavirus.

One key difference between homemade masks and others is their fabric. Most surgical masks, for example, are manufactured with a non-woven layer of material, which can be key to catching and trapping virus particles.

"Special filtration fabrics – particularly nonwovens – have a distribution of fine fibers in the material that allows only very small openings (pores) so that all particles coming in are intercepted by the fibers in the textile structure," DenHartog told Business Insider via email.

That's quite different from most of our woven and knitted clothing, which is manufactured from yarns, with large pores between them.

"Even though you might not clearly see these openings in woven and knit fabrics, they are still much larger than many droplets that may contain the virus," DenHartog said.

It's possible, then, that homemade masks might act like virus-catchers, absorbing coronavirus droplets, and getting them perilously close to a wearer's nose and mouth. Taking off a mask can also be hazardous, as you might touch some virus particles on the outside of the mask with your hands or fingers, and then later transfer those to your face.

"There is very limited to no research at all to demonstrate that these effects could be limited in any meaningful way for the general population," DenHartog added. "I prefer to advise people that in personal protection, it is generally not true that anything is better than nothing."
Experts still recommend you stay inside and wash your hands as much as possible because DIY masks may offer a false sense of security

Coronavirus face mask Holland
REUTERS/Eva Plevier


There is no clear consensus from public health officials on masks — in New York, for instance, the state health commissioner reiterated on Friday that there is no good data suggesting people need to wear masks, while New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio has urged people to cover their faces and Gov. Andrew Cuomo suggested that "it won't hurt."

As advice on mask-wearing shifts, experts are keen to emphasize that they should not be seen as a replacement for staying at home, washing your hands, and otherwise practicing social distancing measures.

A main concern, voiced in the 2010 NIOSH study, is that homemade masks could offer a false sense of security.

Hand washing, disinfection, and limiting contact with other people are still regarded as the most effective tactics to prevent the spread of illness. A 2009 meta-analysis found masks could be effective, but only if people wear them consistently and correctly — and they were most protective in combination with proper hand washing.

"[Using respiratory coverings] in itself is not a bad idea, but that doesn't negate the need for hand washing. It doesn't negate the need for physical distancing," Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization Health Emergencies Programme, said in a press conference April 3. "It doesn't negate the need for everyone to protect themselves and try to protect others."

The CDC now says all Americans should wear masks — here’s a simple DIY approach

When you can’t buy a mask, make it yourself
Published: April 4, 2020 By Elisabeth Buchwald

DIY masks might not offer as much protection as N95 masks,
 but experts say they can help prevent coronavirus transmission.
 AFP via Getty Images

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the “CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth faced covering as an additional voluntary public health measure.” Trump himself said he does not plan on wearing a face mask.

“The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N95 respirators,” U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams added on Friday. “Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders.”

But even flimsier disposable masks can be hard to find. Luckily, there are quick and easy ways craft your own.

Here’s what you need to know about DIY masks:

• These masks aren’t going to fully protect you from coronavirus. You should still be practicing social distancing by staying at least 6 feet away from others in public and frequently washing your hands for 20 seconds each time.

Don’t “get an artificial sense of protection,” Deborah Birx, a public health expert and a leader of the White House’s coronavirus response team, said Thursday. “Remember, your eyes are not in the mask, so if you’re touching things and then touching your eyes, you’re exposing yourself in the same way.”

• A DIY mask, while not as effective as an N95 mask, still offers some protection from respiratory droplets that spread the virus.

• Fabric that is 100% cotton is comparable to surgical masks in effectiveness.

• If you can’t make your own mask, the New York City Department suggests covering your mouth and nose with a scarf or bandanna.

While the internet is full of suggestions on how to make your own mask (hey, use a coffee filter! A vacuum cleaner bag!), Christian Schrock, an infectious-disease doctor in Minneapolis, points to a version that simulates a surgical mask and doesn’t require sewing skills or even staples or glue.

“All masks are not created equally,” Schrock tells MarketWatch. “There are hundreds of DIY designs out there that do help somewhat to reduce the spread of the virus from the person who is not ill but still highly contagious.”

However, he adds, “this mask, since it is comparable to some surgical masks, offers reasonable protection for the wearer of the mask. It’s not an N95 or better and is not 100% protective.”
maskbuilders.com

Here’s what you need to make the mask in 10 minutes, and a video demonstration via YouTube:

• Clean flat bed sheet with side hems (100% cotton, tight weave)

• Scissors

• Measuring tape (or an 8.5-inches-by-11 piece of paper to approximate)

• Large paper clip (or other malleable metal strip like floral wire or pipe cleaner) to make the nose pinch.

• Safety pins (or stapler)

Your finished mask should look like this:

maskbuilders.com

You can reuse the mask. Place it in boiling water for five minutes. After you turn off the heat, “carefully remove the mask with tongs and place it on a clean paper towel,” Schrock says in the video.

666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666



Using blue shop towels in homemade face masks can filter particles 2x to 3x better than cotton, 3 clothing designers discover after testing dozens of fabrics

(Julie Bort),Business Insider•April 2, 2020
A Suay employee modeling the blue-shop-towel mask.

Suay Sew Shop

Lindsay Medoff, the CEO of Suay Sew Shop, a 30-employee boutique Los Angeles clothing manufacturer, wants the armies of people sewing homemade surgical masks to add a specific blue shop towel inside them.

Medoff and two friends were appalled by the dozens of mask patterns calling for cotton, a highly breathable, permeable fabric, and became obsessed with finding a fabric better suited for the job. They built a lab that could test particle filtration down to 0.3 microns and tested every fabric they could find, from coffee filters to industrial materials.

They discovered that by adding two blue shop towels and using a design that produces a tighter-fitting mask, they could make a mask that could block up to 95% of the particles they could test, while the cotton masks blocked 20% to 60% of the particles.

These are not meant to replace the N95 masks worn by healthcare workers — they're designed to be an alternative to the cotton masks that many people are making and wearing for quick trips to the grocery store.

The women are sewing 200,000 masks and giving them — and a design — away, as well as raising money to pay their workers their full wages.

They're also raising money to get their mask tested with the actual COVID-19 pathogen to see whether their design could be validated as a safer solution during the mask shortage.

"This is ordinary people taking their power back," Medoff said.


The US boutique clothing manufacturing industry is abuzz as sewing shops retool themselves into surgical-mask-making factories, like something out of a World War II "it's up to you"-style poster.

"They sent me a pattern that looked like [it was] from Etsy," she told Business Insider. "I thought, 'What do I do with this?'"

Suay's fashion niche is industrial upcycling, a big fashion trend these days. The company takes unsold clothing items from major brands, such as Patagonia down vests, and crafts them into new clothing, recycling 85% or more of the materials.

But the mask instructions circulating on the internet are not geared toward professional, industrial production. Pro shops use digital instructions, not the kind of paper patterns people buy from fabric shops like JoAnn, Medoff said.

Medoff called her best friend from high school, Chloe Schempf, who also sews and previously had a career designing displays for fashion brands like Urban Outfitters and Free People. Today she's a full-time mom living in rural Michigan, where her husband's veterinary practice is. (Her husband, Dr. Ray Harp, is a cast member on the long-running National Geographic show about country vets, "The Incredible Dr. Pol.")

Schempf had dusted off her sewing machine to join the troops of homemade-mask makers, but when she looked at the instructions, she had another surprise.

No one seemed to be thinking about the fabric that the instructions called for: cotton, and cotton fill for the filter.

How could a highly breathable cotton weave be the right material to filter microscopic pathogenic particles?

Then Schempf saw that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was telling healthcare workers unable to get proper gear to use a bandana as a last resort.

"The recommendation of a bandana made me ill," Schempf said. "I couldn't understand how we can go from a 2020 N95 mask to a 1918-era cotton mask with a variable filtration of 20% to 60%."
3 women set up their own mask-testing shop

Clothing is all about choosing the right fabric for the right use. We don't use insulated down-filled fabric for a swimsuit or a T-shirt jersey knit for a winter coat.

So Schempf, Medoff, and Medoff's business partner, Heather Pavlu, a co-owner of Suay Sew Shop, became obsessed with finding a less permeable fabric for masks.
Suay Sew Shop's Heather Pavlu testing mask particle filtration in the lab she and her friends built.

Suay Sew Shop

They bought a $1,400 particulate-counter device from Grainger that measures filtration ability down to 0.3 microns and spent another 10 sleepless days testing all the fabrics they could find.

They wanted a material they could buy as easily as cotton but that balanced filtration with breathability — they discovered that HEPA vacuum-cleaner bags, for instance, had great filtration but were too suffocating to wear.

The ideal material turned out to be stretchy blue shop towels made from a polyester hydro knit.

Inserting two of these towels into an ordinary cotton mask brought filtration up to 93% of particles as small as 0.3 microns, the smallest their machine could test. Meanwhile, the cotton masks filtered 60% of particles at best in their tests, Schempf said.

Polyester hydro knit towels are readily available at hardware and automotive stores. The two brands they tested were ToolBox's shop towel and ZEP's industrial blue towel. Interestingly, Scott's pro shop towels, which are also made with a hydro knit fabric, didn't work as well, Schempf said.

The team is continuing to test other brands.
ToolBox shop towels.

Harbor Freight

Pavlu said she sewed "at least 15 types of the patterns that were being spread on the internet" before the team realized they were going to have to design a new mask themselves.

So Pavlu tracked down and rented a PortaCount Respirator Fit Tester 8040 machine, and the team tested things like how a wire nose clamp could help create a high-filtration, one-size-fits-all mask.

They are putting the final tweaks to their mask design and plan to release the design for free to the public next week. The instructions will be good for home sewers and pros, available on Suay's website and its GoFundMe page.
200,000 masks from an industrial material

During their tests, they discovered another material that filtered exceptionally well: cleaning towels made from a plastic called polypropylene, used to clean industrial machines.
Suay Sew Shop's homemade fabric-testing lab.

Suay Sew Shop

Still, Suay has enough to make 200,000 masks and has already sewn thousands, Medoff said.

The team also discovered the mask held 95% of its filtration abilities after up to three machine washes.

"We are calling them semi-disposable at this point and are continuing testing after six, seven, 10 washes," Pavlu said.

The next step is to test this mask and the shop-towel version to see whether they actually block the COVID-19 pathogen, which is a smaller particle than their equipment can test.

They are curious and hopeful about their masks, but they don't have any proof that they will protect healthy people from getting the virus any better than an ordinary cotton mask.

Health experts have said that while surgical-style masks like these aren't likely to protect a healthy person from getting the virus, if people with COVID-19 wear them — especially along with following social distancing — that could help minimize the spread.

Schempf said she found a lab in Kansas City making COVID-19 testing kits that was willing to test their masks, but the testing fee is $40,000. She's started a GoFundMe to raise the money and to fund mask-production efforts in her area of rural Michigan.
How masks can help

Medoff said that the shop-towel masks and the ones from polypropylene fabric that her staff is making are not foolproof safety measures. The logic is that if even cotton masks are useful, then ones made of less permeable material can only help.

Suay is in full production and giving the masks away to anyone who needs them, including medical professionals, nursing-home workers, hospice-care workers, people caring for an ill relative, and grocery-store workers — people who are "risking their lives" on the front lines, she said.
Suay Sew Shop's masks.

Suay Sew Shop

Many of these people break down in tears when they get these masks, she said.

Because she's paying her workers their full wages to sew the free masks, she's asking for donations via a GoFundMe.

"This is by community, for community," Medoff said. "This is ordinary people taking their power back."

Homemade mask sellers get creative as the CDC sets new guidelines to stop spread of coronavirus

Coral Murphy,
USA TODAY•April 4, 2020

Even before the Trump administration said people could start wearing face masks in public to stop the spread of the coronavirus, mask makers had taken matters into their own hands.

"Knowing they can't get medical masks, people still have to get something as that first line of protection," Collette Taylor, who runs an Etsy shop, told USA TODAY.

"People are listening to the news and just want to have that protection for them and their family."

Senior officials at the Centers for Disease Control recommended to the White House this week that stronger guidelines were necessary to prevent the virus from spreading between asymptomatic people.

E-commerce website Etsy, which focuses on handmade items, has seen a significant demand for fabric face masks, according to company CEO Josh Silverman. On Friday, Etsy encouraged sellers on its platform to consider creating and selling face masks on their website.



DIY face masks: Where to buy the materials to make masks at home

Homemade mask instructions: How to make your own face mask to help stop the spread of the coronavirus


"We believe that the Etsy community is uniquely positioned to address this crucial need during a global health crisis," Silverman said in a statement. "We hope that increasing the availability of fabric, non-medical grade face masks from Etsy sellers will allow more medical and surgical masks to reach the people who need them most: front-line health care workers."

Taylor, who began her Etsy shop as a side business last year, started with a few orders a week for masks, but that quickly turned into high demand this month. Taylor's shop is currently taking a break to catch up with the demand.

Amid the surge in demand, fashion designer Batani-Khalfani decided to make use of all the fabric in her house to open shop. Batani-Khalfani, who is based in Los Angeles, is making colorfully designed masks for her customers, who include health care providers.

"People, if they have to wear a mask, they want to wear a mask that looks nice and that's still protective," Batani-Khalfani told USA TODAY. "Nurses, police departments, hospitals from all over the country have been reaching out to me."

Face masks: Trump blasts 3M as company says mask demand far exceeds ability to produce them

Effectiveness is unknown

For health care providers, the CDC recommends that homemade masks be used as a last resort, since their capability of protection is unknown. The purpose of the masks are to protect the person and prevent the spread from the person wearing it.

"In terms of the general public, what’s being recommended is the homemade face masks," said Pooja Agrawal, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale School of Medicine. "The efficacy of the mask is still questionable, but I think it makes people feel better."

"The only mask that the CDC considers safe from you getting the coronavirus, the only way to actually prevent you from inhaling it, is the N-95 mask," Capt. Michael Doyle, a U.S. Army New York National Guard physician assistant, told USA TODAY.

Big companies are also trying to meet the nationwide demand for face masks.

General Motors has partnered with the United Auto Workers to call in at least two dozen paid volunteers from its hourly workforce to make millions of face masks at its once-shuttered Warren transmission plant in Michigan.

Equipment retailer Harbor Freight also announced that it was donating its entire supply of N-95 masks to hospitals in the communities where the company has stores.

Sonia Kang decided to use her experience as a nurse and her skills in fashion design to make her own masks for health care providers. She began making the masks for her immediate family, but after posting her masks on social media and receiving inquiries from her friends, her efforts turned into a buy one, donate one initiative.

Through her children’s clothing website, Kang, based in Los Angeles, began selling her masks. She is currently shipping masks to health care facilities across the country, including the Dignity Health Northridge Medical Center.

"We're following the CDC guidelines," Kang said. "The masks are 100% cotton. There's an adjustable wire for closure, and there's a pocket for a filter to be inserted in the mask. With this initiative, you're not only helping yourself, but you're helping the community."

Follow Coral Murphy on Twitter: @CoralMerfi




Two cats have tested positive for the novel coronavirus, but experts still don't think pets infect humans
glandsverk@businessinsider.com (Gabby Landsverk),
INSIDER•April 3, 2020

cat lady AaronAmat/Getty

Two cats — one in Belgium, the other in China — have tested positive for coronavirus in the past week.
New research suggests infected felines could spread the virus to other cats, although it doesn't appear to be very transmissible.

Researchers believe dogs aren't susceptible to infection (although at least one tested 'weak positive' without showing symptoms).


There's still no evidence it can spread from pets to humans, and experts say there's no reason for pet owners to be concerned.

As the US and many other countries continue to be under quarantine and social distancing policies, many people have found themselves stuck at home with their cats or dogs, wondering if their furry friends may also be at risk.

To date, two pet cats — one in Belgium, the other in China — and one dog (also in China) have tested positive for the novel coronavirus. Experts believe all three animals likely contracted the virus from their owners.

Now, new research suggests that cats may be more susceptible to infection from the novel coronavirus, and may be able to spread it to other cats. There's still no evidence to suggest that pets can infect humans, however, and dogs are not likely to be susceptible, according to the study which has not been peer-reviewed.

Researchers in China found that, after a group of six cats were exposed to high concentrations of the novel coronavirus, they appeared to be infected, with evidence of the virus found in the upper respiratory tracts and feces. The study found that the virus also spread to a cat in a nearby cage, likely via respiratory droplets.

The researchers found a similar result in ferrets, but discovered the virus didn't replicate as successfully in dogs (or pigs, chickens, or ducks). Although two of the dogs exposed to the coronavirus later tested positive for the virus in their feces, the virus wasn't found in their internal organs or respiratory tract.

Experts say most pets likely aren't at risk, and there's no evidence the virus can spread to pet owners

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still has not received any reports of animals infected. The American Veterinary Medical Association has continued to emphasize that there's no reason to think pets could spread the disease to humans. Both the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health stated that as of April 2, there have been no reported cases of pets transmitted the novel coronavirus to humans.

Dr. Will Sander, the head of the joint veterinary-master's in public health degree program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Veterinary Medicine, previously told Business Insider that pets are unlikely to be affected by coronavirus.

"At this time, people should be minimally concerned about this coronavirus affecting their pets," he said. "The virus seems well adapted to spread between people and, therefore, unlikely to jump to dogs or cats."

There was a reported case in early March of a Pomeranian who tested 'weak positive' for the novel coronavirus and quarantined in Hong Kong, Business Insider previously reported. The dog, which belonged to a coronavirus patient, may have been carrying the virus in its mouth and nose, according to Hong Kong's Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. It reportedly showed no signed of illness.

It may be that, in that case, the virus was passed from the human, who was confirmed to have COVID-19, Sander said.

And it's still the case that most cats and dogs probably aren't at risk and are unlikely to carry the virus around, infecting other humans, Sander confirmed in a more recent interview via email.

"The biggest risk by far for contracting COVID-19 is still from other humans," he said. "Precautions that CDC has had out for a while of those positive for COVID-19 or showing upper respiratory signs and fever trying to distance themselves from people and pets still holds true."

Read the original article on Insider



SOCCER
'I'll take the same pay cut as the players' - West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady


Goal.com•April 4, 2020


West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady says many Premier League clubs face ruin due to the coronavirus and vows to take the same pay cut that players are being urged to accept.


Like almost every other industry, football has been ground to a halt because of the Covid-19 pandemic, with almost all leagues suspended until further notice.

The Premier League announced this week that there had been discussions over asking players to take a 30 per cent pay cut to ease the burden on clubs as they look to compensate for the lack of revenue.

And Brady insists that deferring players' wages is a necessity, otherwise clubs will go out of business.

"There is no matchday revenue, no sale of season tickets for next season, no retail outlets open and online retail businesses have closed as it is not essential work," Brady wrote in her column in The Sun.

"With no date for restarting the league, this is having severe financial implications.

"Bearing in mind the majority of the broadcast revenue goes to pay the players’ wages it is unthinkable that the PFA don’t seem to understand this.

"They seem to suggest that the players taking a pay cut means the money somehow goes into the owners pockets which is totally ridiculous.

"I applaud Andros Townsend’s tirade against people who make players out as 'villains' just as I dislike the PFA claim that a pay cut settlement will 'only serve the shareholders’ interests'.

"The PFA may believe its responsibilities end with the players but they really don’t, they owe a great deal to the structure of professional football as well.

"No one wants to be having pay cut discussions with anyone because no one wants to be in this position.

"It is a global pandemic and extremely serious. And without any revenue — and no games being played — how on earth do we ensure the ongoing business survives?

"And, take it from me, unless a pay cut is put in place a number of clubs will be ruined."

She added: "This is not an easy time for anyone and we are not immune to the fact this will affect each of them differently.

"I wish there was another way but, without income and matches, there really isn’t. I for one will take the same cut as they will, after all we are all in this together."


Premier League players' 'backs against wall' over coronavirus, says Rose

AFP•April 4, 2020


Danny Rose is on loan at Newcastle from Tottenham (AFP Photo/Glyn KIRK )

London (AFP) - Newcastle defender Danny Rose is willing to contribute a portion of his wages to those fighting the coronavirus outbreak but says Premier League players feel their "backs are against the wall".

Top-flight stars have come under increasing pressure to take pay cuts from government officials after a number of clubs said they would use public money to subsidise pay for non-playing staff.

The Premier League said on Friday that clubs would consult players over a combination of pay cuts and deferrals amounting to 30 percent of their annual salary.

They agreed to provide a £125 million ($153 million) fund for the English Football League and National League and pledged £20 million in charitable support for those affected by the coronavirus.

Talks were due to take place on Saturday between the league, clubs and players' representatives.

Newcastle, where Rose is on loan, and his parent club, Tottenham, are among clubs to have furloughed some non-playing staff during the crisis, prompting criticism as players continue to receive their full salary.

"We're all keen to make something happen," Rose told the BBC.

"I can only speak for myself but I would have no problems whatsoever contributing some of my wages to people who are fighting this on the front line and to people who have been affected by what's happening at the minute."

On Friday, a hospital in London identified Rose as the individual behind a £19,000 donation to hospital funds.

Liverpool skipper Jordan Henderson led talks between Premier League club captains over what action they could take, a move that begun before Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Thursday joined those singling out footballers.

- Pressure -

"We sort of feel our backs are against the wall," Rose said. "Conversations were being had before people outside of football were commenting.

"I've been on the phone to Jordan Henderson and he's working so hard to come up with something.

"It was just not needed for people who are not involved in football to tell footballers what they should do with their money. I found that so bizarre."

Wolves captain Conor Coady said it was time for players to help out.

"It's fantastic to see people trying to make the effort," he said. "It's something everyone wants to be part of. As footballers, it's important we help as many people as possible.

"What's come out now is the 30 percent cut. We get judged every single day of our lives. The time now is to go forward and make a donation."

On Saturday, Burnley said they would face a shortfall of up to £50 million if the Premier League season could not be completed.

"It's a completely unprecedented situation that we and other Premier League clubs face and which we could not have foreseen in anyway only just a few weeks ago," said Burnley chairman Mike Garlick.

"It's now not just about Burnley or any other individual club any more, it's about the whole football ecosystem from the Premier League downwards and all the other businesses and communities that feed from that ecosystem."


Chris Wilder says players and managers will ‘do the right thing’ on wage cuts

By PA Sport Staff,
PA Media: Sport•April 4, 2020

Sheffield United boss Chris Wilder has backed players and managers to “do the right thing” by taking a pay cut.

Premier League clubs have proposed wage cuts of around 30 per cent to ease the financial burden caused by the coronavirus pandemic, while the league has announced a contribution of £20million to the NHS and £125million to the lower leagues.


Meetings are taking place on Saturday between the Premier League, Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) and League Managers’ Association (LMA) in the hope of coming to an agreement.

The thoughts of all those at The Premier League and our clubs are with those directly affected by COVID-19 pic.twitter.com/m12qXF3gen
— Premier League (@premierleague) April 3, 2020

“A lot of footballers, past and present, have got a huge conscience about what we do and doing the right thing,” Wilder told the BBC’s Football Focus programme.

“I am sure we will do the right thing through the PFA for the players, the LMA who look after the managers, the Premier League, EFL and FA, they will always do the right thing.”

Tottenham, Newcastle and Norwich are clubs that decided to furlough staff before the players’ proposal was announced, while Bournemouth manager Eddie Howe Brighton counterpart Graham Potter both took voluntary wage cuts.

Wilder says that any decisions made should be done from a united front.

Danny Rose, centre, has already donated £19,000 

to the NHS (Owen Humphreys/PA)

He added: “It is important we get it right and don’t go individual. It is a little bit disappointing now when you see clubs making individual statements and going their own way.

“It is important that we pull together as an industry, right from the top at the Premier League down to the reaches.”

On-loan Newcastle defender Danny Rose would have “no problem” contributing a portion of his wages to those fighting the outbreak.

But Rose admits Premier League players feel their “backs are against the wall” after politicians joined those calling for action.

“We’re all keen to make something happen,” Rose said on BBC Radio 5 Live.

“I can only speak for myself but I would have no problems whatsoever contributing some of my wages to people who are fighting this on the front line and to people who have been affected by what’s happening at the minute.”

On Friday, North Middlesex University Hospital identified Rose as the individual behind a £19,000 donation to hospital funds.

That came on the same day that Liverpool skipper Jordan Henderson led talks between Premier League club captains over what action they could take – a move that begun before Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Thursday joined those singling out footballers.

“We sort of feel our backs are against the wall,” Rose added. “Conversations were being had before people outside of football were commenting.

Our super sleuths have scoured the evidence and identified that @SpursOfficial's amazing Danny Rose is our incredibly generous mystery donor.😍Here he is saying a *huge thankyou* to NorthMid and other NHS heroes.And wash your hands, stay indoors, and help the NHS stay safe. pic.twitter.com/wFCRIgQY3T
— North Mid Hospital (@NorthMidNHS) April 3, 2020

“I’ve been on the phone to Jordan Henderson and he’s working so hard to come up with something.

“It was just not needed for people who are not involved in football to tell footballers what they should do with their money. I found that so bizarre.”

Talks are due to take place on Saturday between the league, clubs and players representatives.

Wolves captain Conor Coady said it was time for players to help out.

“It’s fantastic to see people trying to make the effort,” he said. “It’s something everyone wants to be part of. As footballers, it’s important we help as many people as possible.

“What’s come out now is the 30 per cent cut. We get judged every single day of our lives. The time now is to go forward and make a donation.”

£50 Million Shortfall If Clarets Don’t Finish The Season https://t.co/XXslyDBLfJ
— Burnley FC (@BurnleyOfficial) April 4, 2020

On Saturday, Burnley said they would face a £50million shortfall if the Premier League season could not be completed.

The Clarets said this was a result of £5million in lost matchday revenue – a shortfall which would remain if the season was completed behind closed doors – as well as a £45million in lost broadcasting revenue. The club suggested the amount could be as high as £100million for some other clubs.

“It’s a completely unprecedented situation that we and other Premier League Clubs face and which we could not have foreseen in anyway only just a few weeks ago,” Burnley chairman Mike Garlick said.

“It’s now not just about Burnley or any other individual club anymore, it’s about the whole football ecosystem from the Premier League downwards and all the other businesses and communities that feed from that ecosystem.

“As a club, as fans, as staff members and as a town we are all in this together and I’m sure we can get through this by sticking together and helping each other in every way possible in these tough times.”

Leicester City Chairman Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha on the importance of community in the current Coronavirus pandemic, supporting our health services and the launch of Gift of a Wish 2020 on his late father’s birthday…
— Leicester City (@LCFC) April 4, 2020

Leicester are relaunching their Gift of a Wish campaign, allocating funds to causes who work with people affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

The programme, which is run by the Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha Foundation, is inviting local causes to apply for grants.

Chairman Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha said in an open letter: “We are acutely aware that there are a huge number of worthy causes of all sizes within Leicestershire communities, for whom the pandemic both demonstrates their immeasurable value, yet threatens their very existence.

“It is with this in mind that today, on what would have been my beloved father’s birthday, the Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha Foundation is relaunching the Gift of a Wish programme for 2020, making funds available to causes in Leicestershire to apply for grants to support valuable work in the community.

“In these unprecedented times, a proportion of the funds available will be allocated to causes whose work supports those affected by the coronavirus pandemic. It is also important that we make support available to causes whose work will take on added significance in the future, as our communities begin to emerge from this crisis and rebuild services affected by it.”

---30---