“I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing” • Hacker News Board

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#281

Post by kerng » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:14 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #212

mcsb4 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop spreading this false information and have a look at the infection numbers in China. The masks stop droplets coming from your mouth and nose and if everybody wears them, then they are a very effective mean to massively slowing down the spreading of the virus. No, the masks are not 100% virus tight. Yes, they prevent spreading of diseases. That's why they are worn by surgeons. They are 20 cents a piece, tha…

The mask not only keeps airborne droplets in, or out. It keeps the wearer from touching mouth and nose involuntarily. This helps protect against smear infections! I noticed this when I was wearing one during a flu infection. My fingers were frequently surprised to touch the mask instead of my face, and I went "oh, right, don't do that!"

It's interesting how much different, and even opposing information is floating around. Just the other day I read an article that said masks are bad because you will and need to touch your face more often...

Regardless, most reputable source for advice is probably from WHO, even though my gut feel/logic would tell me otherwise.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#282

Post by pas » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

MisterTea wrote: post #243

mcsb4 wrote: post #85

I don't understand why we are not trying to interrupt the transmission vectors with masks and hand sanitizer like the Chinese do. They ramped the daily production from 10M to 100M and even advised the use of make-shift masks. The reaction in the west: masks are not protecting 100% and also we don't have any and we are too lazy to produce them, although they are much cheaper than the economic impact covid-19 has. 1. y…

At the risk of sounding stupid, why hasn't anyone been talking about making makeshift masks using clothing or cloth? There's plenty of that in everyone's home. What about a scarf? Fine, it's not N95 but it can't be any less effective than a simple surgical mask that does blocks spittle.

A scarf (and other soft cloths) sounds problematic, because it traps droplets and then gives them more time to get into your airways. Though it probably helps with someone coughing at you directly. (But you have to instantly remove the scarf, and should wear glasses too, and then remove that too, and then wash your face, then the glasses and then the scarf.)

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#283

Post by notacoward » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #273

notacoward wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how everyone wants to talk about masks and hand sanitizer, but not about gloves or good old soap and water. To me, it's a sign of wanting to score internet points more than to actually inform. The best information I've seen so far suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can survive 2-3 hours as aerosol, 2-3 days on some surfaces. You're much more likely to be exposed or to expose others by touching something than by walking…

What does wearing a glove really achieve? You can't get the virus through direct skin contact, so virus living on your skin is not going to infect you. Touching your face while you have virus on your skin is how you get infected, and touching other surfaces while your hand is dirty is how you help spread the infection. Both of these work just as well if the virus lives on a glove rather than your skin. So no, gloves…

You're exhibiting exactly the kind of non-science-based attitude I was talking about. Droplets, oh no, run away!

Let's say you're unknowingly infected, like all of those people who were hanging out at bars as though they're invulnerable this weekend. So you have virus on your skin already. Are you more likely to pass it on to others via surfaces if your skin is bare or if you put a glove on it? The answer's pretty obvious. If you touch your face then the probability of infection either way increases again, but (a) people touch their faces less often with gloves on and (b) every time you change gloves the probability drops back to near zero. So yes, gloves do protect you somewhat, and they protect others even more. Just as importantly, there's no sane scenario in which they'd make things worse or deny resources to those who need them more (as with masks). It doesn't make much difference whether the surface transmission route is directly on skin or via face touching. That's why health care professionals use gloves even when dealing with respiratory diseases like COVID-19.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#284

Post by pas » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:24 PM UTC

discodave wrote: post #70

londons_explore wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a future where you do a swab test every morning while brushing your teeth. If you had any of thousands of infectious diseases, you're required to stay home. The test would take only 5 minutes, and you get fined if you don't do it, and receive sick pay if you test positive. I imagine that within a few years of rolling this out, common colds might be a thing of the past, and overall worker productivity higher r…

Sounds like Gattica :)

GATTACA. :)

Easy to remember that there's no I in it, because the letters are the letters used in our DNA. (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine)

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#285

Post by pas » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM UTC

neuronic wrote: post #168

Udik wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me dream: how hard would it be to create a test that can be distributed by the billions on paper strips like a ph test? You take one every evening and by the morning it tells you if you can go out or not. Is it conceivable or (borderline) impossible?

Bioinformatician here (well, former): I would never say something is impossible but the way these things are tested right now, it pretty much is impossible. We need to amplify some molecules and run a process called PCR on them for which you need a full lab setup. It would take nothing short of a revolution in detection to achieve this.

What would the cost be to set up testing machines every few blocks? People just get a swab, drop it into the machine, and get a code (just take a picture of a QR code) that they can later check for results.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#286

Post by falcolas » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:30 PM UTC

mcsb4 wrote: post #85

I don't understand why we are not trying to interrupt the transmission vectors with masks and hand sanitizer like the Chinese do. They ramped the daily production from 10M to 100M and even advised the use of make-shift masks. The reaction in the west: masks are not protecting 100% and also we don't have any and we are too lazy to produce them, although they are much cheaper than the economic impact covid-19 has. 1. y…

Masks are not effective. There are not only professionals saying this, there are scientific studies, and as a result, fewer surgeons are wearing them, favoring instead a plastic face shield.

Why are they not effective? Because they don’t contain the aerosolized moisture from your breath. Most masks, unless properly sealed against your face and not impeded by moisture in the mask, will bypass the mask entirely and vent out the sides. How long does it take for moisture to impede airflow through the mask? About 30 minutes.

So, unless you are replacing your mask for a new one every 30 minutes, and are ensuring that its properly fit every time, wearing a mask is a placebo at best.

Can a mask block you from spitting on everyone? Sure, but so can your arm or hand when you’re coughing.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#287

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #274

simiones wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the virus lives on non-live surfaces for up to 3 days. This alone invalidates the rest of your argument.

We still don't know how long it lives on clothing. On doorknobs, plastic, stainless steel it can live for 72 hours, yes. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/14/8116090...

Plastic, like buttons, which are on clothing.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#288

Post by blueblimp » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

hackandtrip wrote: post #246

blueblimp wrote: post #184

There absolutely is an acceptable way out of this. China, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, at least, are going to be just fine. They are focused on suppressing and controlling the virus. Once they get few enough imports from travel (presumably by restricting travel from countries where the virus is uncontrolled) and eliminate local transmission, they can resume life-as-usual, apart from being on high alert for impo…

In 5-10 days we'll see if the first EU country to adopt police-state measures will be added to that list. Spain and France are on the right track too, other than Italy.

I'm not sure exactly what Italy is doing at the moment, but an important result out of China is that they found quarantine-at-home was not good enough for Rhttps://twitter.com/XihongLin/status/1236076749491929094

So the first attempt does not necessarily work. But I hope it does, and if not, I hope they quickly iterate to find one that does.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#289

Post by ncallaway » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

geomark wrote: post #242

bosswipe wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-mask thing in the west is so upsetting, and it's more aggravating because it's the health care workers giving the horrible advice. I don't care that we don't have enough N95 masks for everybody, N95 are for preventing inhalation of virus. What we need are the disparaged "surgical" masks which are for preventing spittle flying everywhere. And they do not have to be high-tech they just have to cover the mouth.…

It seems strange to me as well. I am in Thailand and, in Bangkok at least, most people wear masks, carry disinfecting hand gel and are very wary about close contact with people and surfaces. Stores like Makro (Thai version of CostCo) have mask-wearing guards at the store entrance that take your temperature and provide hand gel, while cleaning crews wipe down the handles of shopping carts with disinfectant. To be fair…

> It seems strange to me as well.

We don't have nearly enough masks, and the authorities are trying to ensure that as many masks as we have can go to a healthcare setting.

It's why they're giving us incongruous messages: both "masks don't help reduce the risk of transmission", AND "we need to save masks for health care workers". Obviously, since we're trying to preserve the supply for health care workers they do have some utility in reducing the risk of transmission.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#290

Post by ncallaway » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #273

notacoward wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how everyone wants to talk about masks and hand sanitizer, but not about gloves or good old soap and water. To me, it's a sign of wanting to score internet points more than to actually inform. The best information I've seen so far suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can survive 2-3 hours as aerosol, 2-3 days on some surfaces. You're much more likely to be exposed or to expose others by touching something than by walking…

What does wearing a glove really achieve? You can't get the virus through direct skin contact, so virus living on your skin is not going to infect you. Touching your face while you have virus on your skin is how you get infected, and touching other surfaces while your hand is dirty is how you help spread the infection. Both of these work just as well if the virus lives on a glove rather than your skin. So no, gloves…

> So no, gloves are entirely useless for protection from this kind of virus.

Gloves, even if they do nothing else, act as a strong reminder not to touch your face. Breaking that habit alone can strongly reduce your risk of transmission.