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

291–298 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#291

Post by TeMPOraL »

fishmaster wrote: post #289
cameldrv wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this based on data or just a feeling you have?

I have read these comments often now and it's just something people make up to justify not being able to buy masks.

Which part of this is being made up? That improperly fitted mask isn't protective? That unless you very carefully handle a mask when taking it off, you'll transfer the contaminants from it onto your hands and/or face? That people compensate for risk[0]? That those masks are disposable and lose their protective power over short time (hours)?

--

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#292

Post by adrianN »

thu2111 wrote: post #188
wbl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Be fair. Nobody was building one bomber an hour two months after the very first sign of trouble.

You'd think that we have improved our ability to mass manufacture things since 1940.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#293

Post by adrianN »

chaostheory wrote: post #219
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.

Given the size of the viruses, N100 is the minimum

The virus is not airborne, it spreads via droplets. Those are typically MUCH larger than a virus.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#294

Post by adrianN »

refurb wrote: post #254
Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mortality for covid19 is much higher than for the flu.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#295

Post by empath75 »

refurb wrote: post #285
nopinsight wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the fatality rate and what would happen if it reaches the same percentage of population as seasonal flu? Check out Spanish Flu for worst case scenario. China restrictions have been much more stringent than what you imply. People in Wuhan were prevented from leaving their apartments at all and needed to wait for food from the government. The jury is still out whether softer forms of restrictions ca…

Have you considered the fatality rate and what would happen if it reaches the same percentage of population as seasonal flu? Yeah, that would be bad, but there is no data to suggest it would get that bad.

This makes zero sense. We know the fatality rate. We know the R0. We know how many people have it currently and how fast it’s spreading. It’s simple math.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#297

Post by cameldrv »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #291
fishmaster wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read these comments often now and it's just something people make up to justify not being able to buy masks.

Which part of this is being made up? That improperly fitted mask isn't protective? That unless you very carefully handle a mask when taking it off, you'll transfer the contaminants from it onto your hands and/or face? That people compensate for risk[0]? That those masks are disposable and lose their protective power over short time (hours)? -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Yes. Do you have a study that shows that a mask that has not been fit tested either provides no protection or actually increases the overall risk to the wearer?

I have looked at a fair bit of research on masks lately, and everything I've seen is that they are significantly protective, and, for example, reduce your risk of catching SARS by about 70%.

Yes, if a mask doesn't fit properly, some air will come through the sides. Even in that case though, the mask is still filtering some air, and it's protecting you from touching your mouth or nose, and it's protecting you from droplets hitting your mouth or nose from being coughed or sneezed on.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#298

Post by [deleted] »

majewsky wrote: post #290
hackeer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I started listening twiv.tv podcast and that's how they talk. For instance, they said there are many videos in social media of people dropping unconscious to the floor, but the virologists said not to trust those videos because "it's social media". I stopped listening to their podcast. These people don't reason unless they are shown a peer reviewed paper saying people drop unconscious. I mean, how likely is…

> how likely is it that those videos are being faked? I see it's your first day on the internet. Welcome!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN