Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#121

Post by Symmetry »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #15
aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

I think that different sources are using different definitions of "effective" here. If a simple surgical mask cuts down transmission rates by 50% that isn't anywhere near good enough for health workers working with sick patients every day. But it might still make a significant improvement in your chances of getting infected and, combined with social distancing, might drop the R0 below 1. Hence why Chinese and Korean authorities are encouraging everyone to wear surgical masks but the CDC saying they're ineffective.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#122

Post by soperj »

drcode wrote: post #62
kaylynb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I would call them impractical for everyday wear. I wear N95 masks when commuting during active wildfires. The news always says not to wear them because you won't put them on properly, but it's really not that hard to ensure the fitment is correct. It's not like the construction workers that wear them occupationally are rocket scientists. My partner is more vulnerable to respiratory problems and has alway…

Telling people they should wear masks because they don't put them on properly is like telling people they shouldn't drive cars because some people drive them into trees.

I agree, but there are definitely people out there that shouldn't be driving that are.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#123

Post by jklhjklhtoeiru »

t420mom wrote: post #119
tjt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is super scary. Before I read this I was happily thinking hey it's no worse than flu. Now... I'm wishing I didn't live in a huge city riding the subway daily.

Are you able to ride a bike to work?

In many cities/countries that's more dangerous than just getting the corona.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#124

Post by op00to »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #56
kaylynb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I would call them impractical for everyday wear. I wear N95 masks when commuting during active wildfires. The news always says not to wear them because you won't put them on properly, but it's really not that hard to ensure the fitment is correct. It's not like the construction workers that wear them occupationally are rocket scientists. My partner is more vulnerable to respiratory problems and has alway…

Mask fit testing isn’t really about whether you feel like it’s fitting or not but if you have the money I don’t see a reason not to wear the N95

The reason is that we need the N95 to keep our healthcare workers from getting infected and letting the rest of us die.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#125

Post by wbl »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #15
aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

Meanwhile in South Korea everyone has masks. In WWII we built one bomber an hour at one plant, and now we can't figure out how to build millions or billions of masks.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#126

Post by UncleOxidant »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #94
morpheuskafka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

Even N95 masks are not fully sufficient. They typically block particles at 0.3 microns or larger, but coronaviruses tend to be smaller, around 0.1 - 0.3 microns. You need an ASTM Level 2 or higher surgical mask to block coronavirus from completely penetrating the mask. That said, any mask is better than no mask, first because it prevents you touching your mouth and nose with potentially infected hands, and second bec…

Yes, the virus itself is small enough to get through, but typically the virus comes in a water droplet (as in being coughed or sneezed out) and those will be mostly stopped by an N95 mask.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#127

Post by vonmoltke »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #77
morpheuskafka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

>need to be conserved for public health users. I think we should all ask ourselves why we take it for granted that we should simply have to ration masks. Why aren't there enough masks available for everyone for inevitable outbreaks like this? Why don't we have the industrial capacity to manufacture masks in the US, leaving us reliant on foreign imports? We spend ~$80 billion dollars a month on our endless war, milita…

> Why aren't there enough masks available for everyone for inevitable outbreaks like this?

I don't know anyone who has conclusively demonstrated there are not. What we have right now are runs on Home Depot and the like buying out respirators and dust masks faster than the stores can restock them.

> Why don't we have the industrial capacity to manufacture masks in the US, leaving us reliant on foreign imports?

We haven't and aren't. 3M manufactures their masks in the US.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#128

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

geggam wrote: post #117
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it would seem to affect smokers harder, I'd call that a draw.

Cigar smokers FTW...they dont inhale ;)

In that case, it seems like an even weirder affect to take on - none of the nicotine, all of the bad breath and mouth cancer.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#129

Post by pbhjpbhj »

NhanH wrote: post #85
Proziam wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there is news coverage about other things (remember the whole Hong Kong situation that we aren't hearing about suddenly?) that might still deserve some air time. The media is profiting off this story big time. It's like when the plane went missing and a…

It is getting annoying that people keeps comparing different numbers to make their points. If you are using 0.2% mortality rate in a healthy population, you have to compare it with the flu mortality's rate in a healthy population, which is still a magnitude lower. It's disgraceful, to be honest, to compare mortality rates on different population at all. And I'm just gonna quote your link directly to make my point, I'…

I'm pretty sure the figures I read were 1% mortality with Covid19, 1:400,000 for flu (in UK). It was that order of magnitude.

So perhaps like saying chlorine is harmless because people drink it. It's a "well yes, but no ..." situation.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#130

Post by jklhjklhtoeiru »

jessriedel wrote: post #80
aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Why is it easier to get to the brain from the nose compares to the mouth or eyes?

When you have an infection around the nose area you'll be immediately put on strong antibiotics, because the danger of the infection spreading to the brain through the nose is so big.
Post reply on HN