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

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#31

Post by marcell »

ido wrote: post #28
marcell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

The 0.4% fatality estimate is from the CDC, presumably full of credentialed experts. My spreadsheet is a collection of studies from experts who have presumably dedicated their careers to virology and pandemics. The 0.2% number is also from the CDC. I’m not out there doing science, I’m just looking at the data.

I’m not sure what the basis is if your criticism. If a medical doctor wants to submit a PR I would review it based on merits.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#32

Post by lambdaphagy »

ido wrote: post #28
marcell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

Probably because it's hard to trust public health experts in a crisis whose very existence has already demonstrated a failure in their authority.

If I wanted to reduce the risk of acquiring or transmitting an airborne infection back in February, I would wear a mask and avoid enclosed spaces without waiting for CDC's permission. Indeed, I would ignore their advice to the contrary, which stood until April (!)

It would be really nice if we could defer to competent technocratic experts, but they earn their trust by having credible track records, not by collecting credentials.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#33

Post by SeeTheTruth »

longtimegoogler wrote: post #23
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 mask…

Some people want to feel good about not wearing a mask, damn the consequences, damn the people hurt.

If 80% of Americans wore masks infections would plummet https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-covid-19-infec...

If people are too selfish to wear a mask I have no problem with a mandate.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#34

Post by lambdaphagy »

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…

Another point of caution here is that CDC adjusts flu mortality rates for under-reporting in an attempt to estimate how many people actually died of the flu, as opposed to how many people have influenza listed on their death certificates.

COVID-19 mortality rates, however, are almost always reported according to narrower inclusion criteria (either positive COVID-19 dx or "presumptive COVID-19"), so there is a risk of an apples-to-oranges comparison here. One ought either count death certificates or estimate the total mortality burden, but not both.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#35

Post by ido »

lambdaphagy wrote: post #32
ido wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

Probably because it's hard to trust public health experts in a crisis whose very existence has already demonstrated a failure in their authority. If I wanted to reduce the risk of acquiring or transmitting an airborne infection back in February, I would wear a mask and avoid enclosed spaces without waiting for CDC's permission. Indeed, I would ignore their advice to the contrary, which stood until April (!) It would…

As far as I can see the main screw up was the American and British governments ignoring expert advice. I live in Germany which happens to have a responsible adult in charge & this country fared great in this crisis so far.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#36

Post by marcell »

lambdaphagy wrote: post #34
marcell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Another point of caution here is that CDC adjusts flu mortality rates for under-reporting in an attempt to estimate how many people actually died of the flu, as opposed to how many people have influenza listed on their death certificates. COVID-19 mortality rates, however, are almost always reported according to narrower inclusion criteria (either positive COVID-19 dx or "presumptive COVID-19"), so there is a risk of…

I've looked into this a little bit, actually.

There are two parts of flu/covid IFR: fatalities and infections.

For flu fatalities, the CDC does indeed upward adjust the count. They do this by looking at how many people died of pneumonia, and multiplying that by a number. The number is the estimated percent of pneumonia deaths that are from the flu, which they base on historical data.

For flu infections, it's a bit more obtuse. The best I was able to find was this paper from the CDC [1], which says they use a Monte Carlo model to estimate the number of infections.

For Covid, the deaths are based on diagnoses, not necessarily tests. Diagnoses are from symptoms, so it is not completely accurate. Some flu cases could be misdiagnosed as covid cases if you don't do a test. For infections, the numbers are typically based on the results from antibody tests (not Monte Carlo models).

I agree that it's definitely not apples-to-apples comparison, but it's hard to say if the comparison is in favor of flu being more deadly, or covid being more deadly, because there are confounding factors in both directions.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603749/

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#37

Post by disabled »

nsxwolf wrote: post #15

How many steps of the scientific method should scientists need to get through before they can make policy? Throughout this pandemic we've been getting whipsawed by "science". Is a few months really enough time to do all the science on a question as difficult as the efficacy of masks during a novel virus pandemic?

Masks are prudent, considering that they are a very low risk and low cost prevention intervention, irrespective of demonstrating efficacy.

True, it takes a long time (often very long) to establish factual information that becomes widely accepted, but that is not the issue here. Also, the scientific method and peer-review process cannot be altered, and these processes (along with always following a strict code of ethics, staying updated on ethical matters, never compromising on ethics, and never losing sight of all of the above—ever) are even more important during a pandemic. Implying that these processes should be altered is unethical and unconscionable.

We have known that SARS-CoV-2 spreads via respiratory droplets, and that it was, most likely, by far, the main mode of transmission (although that would have needed to be demonstrated too, in a pandemic). Wearing a face mask to capture some of those respiratory droplets (even 10%) would at least help, and would not be insignificant if people are required to wear them in public.

We know that cloth masks capture more than that though.

Also, based on a case report, it is possible that up to 80% of COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic.

Considering that, and the fact that it is spread mainly by respiratory droplets, it is prudent to require the public to wear at least cloth masks.

Czech Republic (along with Slovak Republic—Slovakia) required people to wear face masks in public starting around March 13, and was one of the first western countries to require this. They are now easing restrictions and are doing well.

One of the countries I am sovereign to, Croatia, (US is the other one) has not had any reported coronavirus infections for 3 days in a row. You know, a former war-torn Yugoslav country, still feeling the after effects, with a relatively high and rapidly accelerating quality of life, by western standards.

Stuff like mask wearing is not rocket science.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#38

Post by jakeogh »

lambdaphagy wrote: post #32
ido wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

Probably because it's hard to trust public health experts in a crisis whose very existence has already demonstrated a failure in their authority. If I wanted to reduce the risk of acquiring or transmitting an airborne infection back in February, I would wear a mask and avoid enclosed spaces without waiting for CDC's permission. Indeed, I would ignore their advice to the contrary, which stood until April (!) It would…

No thanks. The Hippocratic oath is meaningless unless the subject decides what constutites a medical procedure.

The train to technocratic ditatorship is paved with... the great glucose poisioning epidemic, loss of free speech, loss of self defense. Todays conventional wisdom is often not looked on favorably in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRnB9El_V5g

Are we going to wear masks for the rest of our lives (outside FFS)? Pandemics are an authortarian dream. The ability to engineer pandemics will only expand.

A bit of scale: Consider how many children go missing in the US each year.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#39

Post by throw_away »

IvyMike wrote: post #30
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…

> 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…

It seems like a lack of imagination to not instead suggest cloth masks if they wanted to avoid a run on n95s.

Meanwhile, you still see people wearing valved n95s, which I'm to understand are less effective in preventing transmission from the wearer (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-Bay-... ). I saw that surgeon general tweet dozens of times from tut-tut types on social media at the onset of lockdown, but info on valved n95s is buried in a cdc faq: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/respirator-use...

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#40

Post by PeterStuer »

The problem is the scientific community did not immediately denounce those scientists that clearly were putting policy before science.

It wasn't just the masks saga. Anyone with basic comprehension of physics and particle data can see how and why masks work, so Don't try to fool the public by lying and don't sit by when some colleagues are basically destroying the whole of the scientific community's credibility just to appease some political interests.

Same for 'social distancing' in enclosed spaces. If you let that sort of nonsense stand, how can you not realize you are just throwing the whole of the scientific trust under the bus?

And now the latest one: 'Children do not transmit the virus' just because some political parties want to reopen schools ASAP?

Just stick to the science, and leave the politics to the politicians.

As I said here back in March, the damage done to scientific credibility is the most saddening collateral in all of this. There wil always be some persons willing to do someone's dirty laundry for fame, gain or even just because they genuinly believed it all 'white lies' for the best of intentions. The huge failure of the scientific community was not calling them out.

Post reply on HN