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

Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#21

Post by ylem »

djsumdog wrote: post #12

I can't really take anything seriously anymore: > Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours I remember Michael Osterholm said CoV2 wasn't airborne, but respiratory, and he made the distinction airborne viruses stay in the air for hours (like Measles). "Aerosols" would indicate they mean respiratory but then they talk about it sticking around for hours. > silent shedders We are told there are…

I think one challenge is that pre-print servers are meant for scientists, not the public. Take physics. If I read a paper on the arxiv in my niche, I can evaluate it's quality. I often referee papers. For me, it's useful to get the early result and if there are gaps, then it's on me to catch them. For those working on Covid19, they are experts, writing for experts. Someone may put out a paper about aerosols in enclosed spaces and how they linger. Someone else might write about how this doesn't verify if the virus RNA detected indicates a live virus. This is how science works and you are seeing it at an accelerated pace. It's actually rather beautiful. But, if you are say a journalist and don't understand this, you can see an article and write a story about it, without understanding that it is preliminary. In short (too late for that), the problem is not that articles on pre-print servers disagree ad we learn more (that's also science)--it is failure of reporting to inform people that these are preliminary results and could be wrong.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#22

Post by marcell »

sacred_numbers wrote: post #20
henriquez wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented This is an opinion piece disguised as science. It’s presumptuous of a science writer to make determinations about whether and how society will be permitted to resume. If we want people to be perfectly safe we’d also ban fast food, meat, alcohol, nicotine, driving and sex. But the goal of society is not to keep people 100% sa…

Because the death rate is way higher than 0.26%. If the CDC really thinks it's that low for the general population then they are wrong. The general consensus I have seen, based on antibody tests in New York, Italy, Sweden, and Spain point to a death rate between 0.75% and 1.25% for most developed nations. For less developed nations (which, to be fair, is most of the world) the death rate will be lower because there a…

The CDC latest best estimate is 0.4% death rate from Covid. This compares to a death rate from the flu of around 0.2%, also based on CDC estimates [1].

Every death is a tragedy, but we didn't do half-lockdowns for the flu before. Why are we doing a full lockdown for something that is 2x the flu.

Antibody testing largely supports a 0.4% death rates conclusion, I've tracked this data in a spreadsheet I made [2]. 0.4% is close to the mean and median of the studies I recorded.

Edit: I know it's gauche to complain about downvotes, but this post is just citing data to make a point. Even if you are worried about Covid, it seems dishonest to downvote data.

[1] https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cd...

[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#23

Post by longtimegoogler »

djsumdog wrote: post #12

I can't really take anything seriously anymore: > Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours I remember Michael Osterholm said CoV2 wasn't airborne, but respiratory, and he made the distinction airborne viruses stay in the air for hours (like Measles). "Aerosols" would indicate they mean respiratory but then they talk about it sticking around for hours. > silent shedders We are told there are…

I am not sure the point of this rant. Anecdotally, it seems that countries where mask wearing is common are doing much better with respect to this virus.

Particularly, in Asian countries where mask wearing is already a somewhat common occurrence in public during the winter months.

Whether or not states should mandate masks is one question but businesses are entirely within their rights to require patrons to wear masks.

Whether people wearing masks for the right reasons or the wrong reasons doesn't seem that relevant to me. Shame is a motivating factor in many behaviors.

In short, wearing a mask is probably a good thing in the short term while we learn more about this virus.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#24

Post by timmytokyo »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16
darkteflon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m based in Tokyo and one of the most frustrating things for me personally is that ~90% of foreigners (or people who are visibly foreigners) are not wearing masks when out and about. This despite the fact that the Japanese are almost uniformly wearing them. We are, after all, in the middle of a pandemic. Is this down to the WHO’s early messaging fumbles, misplaced machismo, ignorance, or what? When foreigners here d…

All of the people I've discussed it with say that they think masks are dehumanizing. I suspect that there's an association with criminality too.

Ironic, since it's even more dehumanizing to blithely expose another human to a potentially fatal virus.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#25

Post by timmytokyo »

djsumdog wrote: post #12

I can't really take anything seriously anymore: > Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours I remember Michael Osterholm said CoV2 wasn't airborne, but respiratory, and he made the distinction airborne viruses stay in the air for hours (like Measles). "Aerosols" would indicate they mean respiratory but then they talk about it sticking around for hours. > silent shedders We are told there are…

I don't think the primary motivation for wearing masks is to protect yourself from others. It's to protect others from you. That's why there's shame involved in not wearing one; if you don't wear it, you're advertising that you don't care about the health of people around you. That's truly sinister.

Unfortunately, something as innocuous as mask wearing has been politicized in the US by certain unsavory political and media figures. In more enlightened countries and cultures (see most of Asia), wearing masks in the midst of a pandemic is just common sense. America is broken.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#27

Post by newacct583 »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #9
newacct583 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one at the CDC (at least no career bureaucrat) ever denied masks were effective, though. It's true that there was concern early on that a public run on masks would put health care workers in jeopardy, so people were absolutely told not to try to procure them. And it's also true that the WHO's messaging on this subject was terribly confusing. But the idea that "Hah! The elites were WRONG about masks!" is just... we…

The "career bureaucrats" had every opportunity to make sure people didn't die, and they failed. You can really just go through the list of wrong information offered at precisely the worst time: subways, nursing homes, masks, the relative safety of being outdoors, etc.

> subways, nursing homes, masks, the relative safety of being outdoors, etc.

OK... go through that then? All that stuff seems like areas that have been broadly agreed upon for months. You're going all the way back to March for a bunch of recriminations (some of which I don't understand -- nursing homes were early hot spots and have always been seen so). No one doubts that people got stuff wrong. But that's not a reason to argue against the same people now that they've corrected themselves.

I mean... you ARE wearing a mask, right? Right?

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#28

Post by ido »

marcell wrote: post #22
sacred_numbers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the death rate is way higher than 0.26%. If the CDC really thinks it's that low for the general population then they are wrong. The general consensus I have seen, based on antibody tests in New York, Italy, Sweden, and Spain point to a death rate between 0.75% and 1.25% for most developed nations. For less developed nations (which, to be fair, is most of the world) the death rate will be lower because there a…

The CDC latest best estimate is 0.4% death rate from Covid. This compares to a death rate from the flu of around 0.2%, also based on CDC estimates [1]. Every death is a tragedy, but we didn't do half-lockdowns for the flu before. Why are we doing a full lockdown for something that is 2x the flu. Antibody testing largely supports a 0.4% death rates conclusion, I've tracked this data in a spreadsheet I made [2]. 0.4% i…

I genuinely mean this with no disrespect but how knowledgeable are you about this & if you aren't why do you think some data collecting from the internet & "back of the envelope" spreadsheet-ing makes you able to reasonably question world experts that dedicated their careers to virology and pandemics?

If you are a programmer how much would you appreciate a medical doctor with no training or experience in software development questioning your technical decisions about what to use when building a software service?

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#29

Post by alisonatwork »

marcell wrote: post #22
sacred_numbers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the death rate is way higher than 0.26%. If the CDC really thinks it's that low for the general population then they are wrong. The general consensus I have seen, based on antibody tests in New York, Italy, Sweden, and Spain point to a death rate between 0.75% and 1.25% for most developed nations. For less developed nations (which, to be fair, is most of the world) the death rate will be lower because there a…

The CDC latest best estimate is 0.4% death rate from Covid. This compares to a death rate from the flu of around 0.2%, also based on CDC estimates [1]. Every death is a tragedy, but we didn't do half-lockdowns for the flu before. Why are we doing a full lockdown for something that is 2x the flu. Antibody testing largely supports a 0.4% death rates conclusion, I've tracked this data in a spreadsheet I made [2]. 0.4% i…

While I personally also think that the lockdown and movement restrictions have been excessive, it's not especially helpful to compare this new coronavirus to the flu, because people can significantly reduce their risk of catching the flu by getting a vaccination. Lockdown is a strategy put in place not because of the increased mortality rate, but because the "standard" risk mitigation of vaccination is not available for this virus.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#30

Post by IvyMike »

newacct583 wrote: post #7
DSingularity wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently wearing masks Was not a CDC guideline

No one at the CDC (at least no career bureaucrat) ever denied masks were effective, though. It's true that there was concern early on that a public run on masks would put health care workers in jeopardy, so people were absolutely told not to try to procure them. And it's also true that the WHO's messaging on this subject was terribly confusing. But the idea that "Hah! The elites were WRONG about masks!" is just... we…

> No one at the CDC (at least no career bureaucrat) ever denied masks were effective, though.

Not the CDC, but the U.S. surgeon general, Feb 29th: "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"

https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/12337257852839321...

Once more data came in proving the effectiveness of masks, he acknowledged in a later tweet that this is incorrect, and encouraged mask usage. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a high-level denial of mask effectiveness.

P.S. I am in fact a mask evangelist, and I don't understand why anyone would avoid them given the data.

Post reply on HN