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

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#41

Post by jakeogh »

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…

Thank you for putting that together. Is there a git repo for covid-19.direct or similar?

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#42

Post by shibeouya »

PeterStuer wrote: post #40

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…

What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently?

I have seen multiple independent studies from different countries coming down with a very similar conclusion that children are not good vectors for this thing to spread.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#43

Post by retsibsi »

marcell wrote: post #31
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…

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…

It looks like your spreadsheet divides deaths on a given date by (confirmed and estimated) cases on that same date? This will bias your estimate downward. There is a significant lag between diagnosis and death (and even more so between infection and death -- which of these is relevant depends on how you are estimating unreported cases), but you're implicitly assuming that 100% of unresolved cases will end in recovery.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#44

Post by Gibbon1 »

throw_away wrote: post #39
IvyMike wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lo…

Read an article on Mongolia of all places. Instead of insanely lying that masks weren't effective they just out and out told people that they needed to reserve N95 masks for hospitals and then deployed an army of (likely mostly) women to sew standard cloth masks.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#45

Post by rumanator »

shibeouya wrote: post #42
PeterStuer wrote: post #40

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…

What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently? I have seen multiple independent studies from different countries coming down with a very similar conclusion that children are not good vectors for this thing to spread.

> What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently?

OP's point is about if children transmit the virus. Either they do or don't.

But your question is about the efficiency of how children transmit the virus. It's an entirely different question although your personal choice of weasel words makes it look differently.

It makes no sense to waste time talking about efficiency if you're talking about a known virus transmission vector.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#46

Post by disabled »

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…

Comparing deaths from previous years for the same month(s) (of the pandemic), along with the expected number of deaths (projected) for 2020, is how this sort of calculation is made, on a preliminary basis.

There is an (older) Financial Times article that did an excellent analysis on this (free to read): https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06...

But, this article (also free to read) came out today from the Financial Times and is way better. The UK is doing far worse than the US interestingly: https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71...

Countries like France, Spain, and Italy (Mediterranean countries) in particular rank badly (besides having an uncontrollable infection problem) for the calculation of total excess deaths (compared to previous years) because they have some of the highest average lifespans in the world, largest percentages of elderly populations, and have extremely high quality universal healthcare (for example, the third leading cause of death in the US is actually preventable medical errors, so we really do not have phenomenal healthcare, even if you have “great insurance” and “can pay for it”).

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#47

Post by marcell »

retsibsi wrote: post #43
marcell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It looks like your spreadsheet divides deaths on a given date by (confirmed and estimated) cases on that same date? This will bias your estimate downward. There is a significant lag between diagnosis and death (and even more so between infection and death -- which of these is relevant depends on how you are estimating unreported cases), but you're implicitly assuming that 100% of unresolved cases will end in recovery…

You are correct, deaths lag a bit, as does reporting of the deaths, which downward biases the IFR. Antibodies also lag before they show up in the serology tests, which upward biases the IFR.

But broadly, the studies I've cited largely back up the CDC's estimate of 0.4% IFR. Some of them have methodology in the papers themselves which give similar numbers, and I encourage you to read the raw data.

But an IFR close to the flu is not at all surprising. Covid is a respiratory infection. It kills the same way the flu kills (eg. pneumonia), so you'd naively expect them to have similar fatality rates and outcomes, and they do.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#48

Post by [deleted] »

shibeouya wrote: post #42
PeterStuer wrote: post #40

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…

What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently? I have seen multiple independent studies from different countries coming down with a very similar conclusion that children are not good vectors for this thing to spread.

[deleted]

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#49

Post by votepaunchy »

rumanator wrote: post #45
shibeouya wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently? I have seen multiple independent studies from different countries coming down with a very similar conclusion that children are not good vectors for this thing to spread.

> What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently? OP's point is about if children transmit the virus. Either they do or don't. But your question is about the efficiency of how children transmit the virus. It's an entirely different question although your personal choice of weasel words makes it look differently. It makes no sense to waste time talking about efficiency if you're talking…

By that measure masks do not work since N95 allows a certain level of particles to transit. Perfection is not necessary, only reducing the replication factor.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#50

Post by 0d9eooo »

timmytokyo wrote: post #25
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…

Unfortunately, I sympathize with the anti-mask requirement sentiment, even though I wear one in indoor public spaces like grocers. I don't think people should be shamed or that they should be mandated.

When I read into it it's not always clear masks work well to limit egress of virus, and I do think the scientific community is to blame to some extent for presenting things as "masks are scientific and lack of masks is not." This approach might only worsen things relative to a message of "we don't really know but it's a good idea to be prudent."

Linked scientific articles advocating masks I find are often misleading. They often are based on other viruses that potentially have other transmission properties, or make questionable assumptions, like that the mask is an n95 mask or is wet cloth. When I have found actual studies of SARS-CoV-2 with dry fabric of the sort most masks are made of, the masks work, but not nearly as well as you might think.

The problems with masks have really been underscored for me practically too. I've tried a couple of masks now, fit to my face, and I've run into a telling problem: when I breathe in mildly colder air, my breath shoots out from underneath my mask and fogs my glasses immensely. Not only is it evident in a very visible way that when I'm wearing the mask it's not actually blocking airflow very well, but then I have to constantly adjust things because I can't see, and sometimes have to resort to removing the mask entirely.

I still wear the mask and the fogging has gotten better as it's warmed, but my overall impression is that there are good reasons people might not wear masks, and I think the evidence in favor of them is much weaker and less rigorous than is often acknowledged. I think if the scientific community were being honest, they'd say they don't work great, but it's something, and every bit can count. That message seems to be enough; it would go a long way.

Post reply on HN