California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges • Hacker News Board

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#81

Post by yongjik » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

standardUser wrote: post #3

California shut down very hard and fast. When they reopened, nearly 100% of the population was still susceptible to the virus, so it spread like wildfire. Especially since the reopening was not exactly slow. Compare this to the Northeast and much of Western Europe where the virus spread too quickly until lockdowns reduced the spread. Now, keeping the transmission rate low in those areas has become comparatively easy,…

I'm not a virologist, but it seems like even in NYC the antibody test was "only" ~20% positive. ~30% if you drill down to certain subgruops: https://www.6sqft.com/new-york-covid-antibody-test-prelimina...

I think it would mean, even in NYC, its current "herd immunity" would reduce the so-called R value by only 20%. That doesn't sound enough to explain the difference between NY and CA.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#82

Post by blisseyGo » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

anarazel wrote: post #79

Agustus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcement is the state forcing its will on you eliminating the individual’s ability to evaluate risk. Eric Garner is dead because of government rule flexing you suggest. The government should buy ads showing the efficacy of face masks and use the ad council to pretty it up. If you have politically connected individuals flouting the rules, people will salami tactics their way to not wearing the masks. *edit: thanks…

> Enforcement is the state forcing its will on you eliminating the individual’s ability to evaluate risk. Except that the primary benefit of masks wrt covid is to significantly reduce the likelihood of the wearer to spread covid (by reducing how much spit escapes ones mouth). So the decision to wear/not wear is not directly about the decider's risk, it's about societal risk.

That's a myth which keeps getting repeated. I posted multiple studies which debunk it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23825646

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#83

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #53

hvac wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked NYT article says that deaths are up 28% over the last two weeks.

... after dropping 80% from the peak

The places that had the drop in deaths aren't the places that are having the exponential increase in cases now.

It makes no sense to say that deaths have plummeted in NY, as cases have too, and therefore Arizona or Florida doesn't have to worry about deaths increasing as cases skyrocket.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#84

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

blisseyGo wrote: post #40

CerealFounder wrote: post #28

I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre

Because it's unconstitutional and masks don't even work unless they are N95 which are fitted. Neither for the wearer, nor for the people around them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article > Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contam…

>I literally shared multiple studies which state "There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure."

It's the first half that I would take issue with, and I don't see anything you quoted as convincingly supporting it.

Garden variety masks are not suitable for healthcare professionals; that's why N95 masks are reserved for them. But the ordinary masks are vital to reduce the odds of transmission where the proportions of infected to not-infected are inverted.

It's fundamentally different whether you have one (potentially) infected person surrounded by non-infected people, or one (presumably) non-infected person surrounded by infected people. The latter needs an N95 and maybe more, and the former needs anything as long as it deflects exhalations a little.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#85

Post by yodon » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

blisseyGo wrote: post #40

CerealFounder wrote: post #28

I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre

Because it's unconstitutional and masks don't even work unless they are N95 which are fitted. Neither for the wearer, nor for the people around them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article > Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contam…

The studies you cite focus on the use of masks to protect the wearer of the mask. The purpose of masks is not to protect the wearer of the mask but to protect others.

In simple hand-waving terms the mask diffuses the wearer's exhalation reducing the velocity of the air stream and its contained particles, thereby reducing the distance the particles can travel and increasing the odds that the particles drop out of the airstream and onto a surface before they encounter another person.

The diffusive effects of masks does not provide a 100% barrier but given that Covid-19 appears to be predominantly transmitted via airborne particles rather than surface contact, mask wearing can still have a large impact on transmission without being directly protective of the wearer.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#86

Post by anarazel » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

blisseyGo wrote: post #82

anarazel wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Enforcement is the state forcing its will on you eliminating the individual’s ability to evaluate risk. Except that the primary benefit of masks wrt covid is to significantly reduce the likelihood of the wearer to spread covid (by reducing how much spit escapes ones mouth). So the decision to wear/not wear is not directly about the decider's risk, it's about societal risk.

That's a myth which keeps getting repeated. I posted multiple studies which debunk it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23825646

They don't debunk anything.

The last study you quote says "this highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease.". Another is a meta-study of very few low quality studies. The osha guidelines are essentially just explaining that respirators are important in some settings, which nobody serious doubts. Another just determines that respirators are more effective than cloth masks. Doh.

Just quoting a bunch of half related studies doesn't make a fact.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#87

Post by throw0101a » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #58

throw0101a wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deaths (the more important number) Is it though? > For every one person who dies: > 19 more require hospitalization. > 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. > 10 will have permanent lung damage. > 3 will have strokes. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive functio…

How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?). Assume 1% fatality rate for infections (it’s actually lower), you’re saying somewhere 19% to 60% (depending on overlap of those categories) have permanent damage? That’s clearly not what we’re seeing.

> How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?).

Article links to sources. Interpret as you will.

Just a counter-'claim' against the GP that all we have to worry about is the fatality rate.

As hospitals fill up, even with a low mortality rate, it means all sorts of other procedures are delayed or cancelled.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#88

Post by standardUser » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #63

refurb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Seropositive tests have show the vast majority develop an immune response, how long that lasts we don’t know, but even if it’s only 6 months, that will reduce spread. You don’t create an epidemic plan based on edge cases. And it’s important to note that the tests are looking for viral RNA. Viral RNA can be found even if virus are inactivated in the absence of an active infection…

No one yet knows whether the antibodies detected in seropositive tests actually confer protection against getting sick from this virus. For some viruses, like, say, HIV, you can have lots of antibodies against it, but still be sick with HIV. It is not yet clear whether SARS-CoV-2 is like HIV in this sense or if the antibodies produced by the body after infection with the virus actually confer protection against futur…

There was a study where they tried to reinfect monkeys with the virus after they had developed a prior immune response. Even in laboratory setting, they could not reinfect the monkeys.

https://www.livescience.com/monkeys-cannot-get-reinfected-wi...

That, plus every case of supposed reinfection that has occurred so far is either inconclusive or proven to be a case of false positives. The big one was in South Korea, where the KCDC later determined that their test was picking up dead virus fragments.

It gets hard to keep pretending people can get COVID-19 over and over again. Maybe if had been documented 1000 times out of 13 million cases, but we haven't even seen anything close to that.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#89

Post by standardUser » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #71

standardUser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, when millions and millions of people become infected with an illness there will be a wide range of edge cases. But if reinfection within 6 months was anything other than exceptionally rare it would be obvious by now. Now if you had a peer reviewed study to link instead of media reports, I would be very interested.

It seems you're moving the goalposts though. Your initial statement was that there were zero confirmed cases of reinfected individuals. The commentator gave you an example of such a case (and I can give you an another with the thoughts of a doctor [1]), then you moved back and said 'if it was anything more than exceptionally rare'. At the very least can you maintain your argument? More dangerously could be the situat…

I maintain that there is no peer-reviewed research proving that an individual can become infected after recovering from COVID-19. There are only scattered media reports.

However, I am not claiming it is strictly impossible. That has not been proven either. But at this point, we could only assume it is extremely rare, at least within a 5-6 month window.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#90

Post by wtvanhest » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

phonebanshee wrote: post #60

wtvanhest wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should wait to make determinations on cause until we see if that changes once the weather turns in the north and Europe and people return to heated spaces. If this was really a matter of herd immunity, Florida wouldn’t be getting hammered right now.

Don't forget that idea is inverted for lots of the US (like Florida and Arizona). You gather indoors during the summer, in air conditioned spaces. Winter is when you're outside more often.

That is what underlies my point. Basically, I don’t think we can say that Europe or the northern US has this beat yet. It doesn’t. Once winter comes again, we get the real numbers.