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

251–260 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#251

Post by Seenso »

_spoonman wrote: post #199
drcode wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think what OP means is N95 masks must be properly fitted to the individual. When my wife started working at a hospital she had to undergo such a fitting. So unless you get the proper size, you could still be exposed. I think that’s what he meant.

> N95 masks must be properly fitted to the individual.... So unless you get the proper size, you could still be exposed.

I'd really like to know how often those fit tests actually result in someone needing to select a different respirator size or style.

I wonder if they're only needed if you're required to be 100% sure all your people can use their respirators with near-100% effectiveness. That's probably necessary if you're working in a contagious disease isolation unit or removing asbestos all day every day, but maybe not for less dangerous environments.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#252

Post by TeMPOraL »

whatshisface wrote: post #246
TeMPOraL wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a mask that isn't regularly replaced and handled very carefully actually increases your chances of catching the virus, via a mask->hand->face transmission.

Wait, how? If it's on the mask wouldn't it be on the face if the mask wasn't there? What process puts viruses on masks but not faces?

Greater surface area, more hand-face contact, and risk compensation.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#253

Post by CamperBob2 »

whatshisface wrote: post #209
CamperBob2 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is actually a problem. Not uncommon to see obvious sham science propagated with an official-looking PubMed link at nih.gov. "I'm allergic to WiFi." "No, you're not. Nobody is allergic to WiFi." "Yes, I am. Here's an official PubMed citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109 . Why do you hate science?"

> Provocation studies on EMF have yielded different results, ranging from where people with EHS cannot discriminate between an active RF signal and placebo, to objectively observed changes following exposure in reactions of the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage to erythrocytes, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain. The paper you linked admits that there are studies that show it's the same as a placebo.…

So? You can say exactly the same things about ESP or dowsing. Run enough studies, even properly-conducted ones, and some of them will yield the results you're hoping for. At that point, all you have to do is either ignore the others altogether, or leverage them to argue in favor of "teaching the controversy," as is done in this particular paper.

This strategy is meaningless in terms of scientific value, but it certainly sounds authentic enough to non-specialists.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#254

Post by refurb »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #240
refurb wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the worry. As of yesterday, China, a country of 1.4B, had 80,000 cases and 3,000 dead. Last year, the US had 36M infected with the flu and 34,000 died.[1] Are you panicking about the flu? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

Mortality rate of covid19 for people with cancer is estimated at over 6%. My mom has cancer. Every person who gets covid19 but thinks "oh it wasn't that bad" makes it just a little more likely that people like my mom will contract it. The reason to not panic but be prepared is that humanity has zero immunity to this virus, whereas there's lots of group immunity to influenza. I'm not sure why it's so hard for people t…

That’s no different than the flu. Older people and people with compromised health make up most of the fatalities each year.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#255

Post by Symmetry »

crusty wrote: post #228
Symmetry wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

TL:DR: The most effective use of disposable masks for blocking germ transmission is by the people with the germs who might pass them to this without but at risk. Surgical masks are meant to protect surgery patients from the medical staff and the droplet-encased germs they emanate. N95 masks are meant to protect the wearer from particulate matter (harmful dust) in the air, specifically those particles over 30 microns.…

What I've read about Coronaviruses is that most transmission is either through hand to face contact or droplet-suspended virions so a mask that doesn't protect against aerosolized droplets would still be fairly effective. I understand that surgical masks aren't intended to prevent inhalation of droplets but the substantial symmetry between air passing through one way or the other would suggest at least broadly similar effects either way. Given the empirical results from elsewhere in the thread it seems like that may be the case.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#256

Post by OJFord »

usrusr wrote: post #250
OJFord wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that there isn't (yet? But not even close to) a supply issue for the healthcare sector, but rather only at retail, due to a combination of increased demand and supply switching over to for-healthcare-only mode. This will be something that's routine, just following the plan, that exists to serve some combination of regulation, duty, and risk (burning important healthcare customer or governme…

Not yet, because outside of active infection hotspots healthcare workers don't yet use significantly more masks than usual.

use of course, but they're still stocking up. Despite that I don't believe it's an issue. It's just prioritising supply.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#257

Post by minxomat »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #181

> According to the complaints of a survivor, the medical graduate student (24 years old) from Wuhan University, she must stay awake and breathe consciously and actively during the intensive care. She said that if she fell asleep, she might die because she had lost her natural breath Sounds like something from a horror movie!

Reminiscent of the Polio outbreak/iron lung era. A survivor described the sound of clicking tounges in iron lung rooms after the electricity had failed and a few nurses needed to rotate between devices, manually pumping air. Tounge clicking because no one had the ability to exhale air and produce vocal sounds.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#258

Post by usrusr »

koolba wrote: post #154
giancarlostoro wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm enjoying the thought of software engineers everywhere coming into work with bandanas covering their faces.

Why would they not remote work?

Who cares for software engineers in bandanas anyways if you can have bank clerks in bandanas!

And even that would hardly look weirder than in surgical masks. Color-coordinated bandanas with a company logo pin?

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#259

Post by penagwin »

whatshisface wrote: post #246
TeMPOraL wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a mask that isn't regularly replaced and handled very carefully actually increases your chances of catching the virus, via a mask->hand->face transmission.

Wait, how? If it's on the mask wouldn't it be on the face if the mask wasn't there? What process puts viruses on masks but not faces?

IMO the biggest problem is people "feel safe" with a mask on, they may not take other precautions.

Also my understanding is that a N95 mask that isn't properly worn (doesn't have a good seal) then it's nearly equivalent to no mask at all.

So you combine those two together and you have people who aren't effectively protected by the mask and are making riskier decisions.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#260

Post by droithomme »

kaylynb wrote: post #49
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.

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…

Here's how to put them on and take them off properly, courtesy of Singapore General Hospital:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoxpvDVo_NI

Post reply on HN