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

Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

directorsblog.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#71

Post by mindslight »

ezekg wrote: post #65
mindslight wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice hypothesis , but until it has been tested, that's what it remains. If Sweden is testing it that's nice for everyone else, but there's no need to run the experiment multiple times in parallel. It's amazing to me that people so purportedly pro-freedom eagerly want the government to perform a public health experiment on the entire country. That's quite totalitarian if you ask me. BTW by saying that mask we…

How is me calling for less government totalitarian?

Deciding to run a large scale experiment of whether herd immunity is a worthwhile strategy for a novel disease is itself a top-down decision. It's not less government per se, just different government action.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#72

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

quicklime wrote: post #56
nradov wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people, regular consumption of Taco Bell is probably a worse health risk than COVID-19. Obesity and hypertension are known killers on their own, and also increase the risk of a bad COVID-19 outcome.

But their consumption of Taco Bell is their own individual problem - their obesity and hypertension can't harm me or others. COVID-19 is different.

If you're being confined to your house over fears of indirectly killing the guy who can't put down the bag of Doritos...well yes.

COVID-19 lockdowns are predicated on the vulnerable which includes the obese and chronically ill.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#73

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ezekg wrote: post #66
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But herd immunity should not equal a rising number of cases, which is what mindslight said. Your reply therefore doesn't actually answer the parent's claim.

You're right -- I should have said "on their way to real herd-immunity." Their death rate is what you should be watching, not cases.

Why the death rate? If people are getting new cases, doesn't that mean that they weren't immune? And if the number of new cases is rising, doesn't that mean that the herd isn't immune?

I mean, yes, ultimately we care about deaths. But why do you think that deaths are the measure of herd immunity?

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#74

Post by quicklime »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #72
quicklime wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But their consumption of Taco Bell is their own individual problem - their obesity and hypertension can't harm me or others. COVID-19 is different.

If you're being confined to your house over fears of indirectly killing the guy who can't put down the bag of Doritos...well yes. COVID-19 lockdowns are predicated on the vulnerable which includes the obese and chronically ill.

I'm not confined to my house, I'm just taking effortless precautions like wearing a mask. I'm doing this more for my elderly grandparents, and people like them, not some strawman who eats too many Doritos.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#75

Post by harambae »

dheera wrote: post #14
fbonetti wrote: post #11

[deleted]

When scientific evidence about a possible low-cost preventative measure is mixed, the upside would be saved lives, and there is virtually no downside to using that preventative measure, the scientifically best thing to do would be to temporarily use that preventative measure until there is better data.

I wear masks (N95 when I visit my elderly relatives) and am not against them. I plan on wearing masks until I have personally been vaccinated and test positive for antibodies. But not after that.

Where it gets weird is when 30% of people won't take a vaccine in the future, the vaccine is somewhere south of 70% effective, and none of the current phase 3 vaccines are seeking approval for use by children either. So what if COVID-19 sticks around for a while as a result. What if you can't tell who has had a vaccine and who hasn't?

Do you plan on wearing a mask everywhere for the next 5 years long after you've tested positive for antibodies? Because I don't.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#76

Post by dheera »

harambae wrote: post #75
dheera wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When scientific evidence about a possible low-cost preventative measure is mixed, the upside would be saved lives, and there is virtually no downside to using that preventative measure, the scientifically best thing to do would be to temporarily use that preventative measure until there is better data.

I wear masks (N95 when I visit my elderly relatives) and am not against them. I plan on wearing masks until I have personally been vaccinated and test positive for antibodies. But not after that. Where it gets weird is when 30% of people won't take a vaccine in the future, the vaccine is somewhere south of 70% effective, and none of the current phase 3 vaccines are seeking approval for use by children either. So what…

I have hope that with so many research resources being directed to the problem, we'll have better vaccines, better cures, OR better management of symptoms so that there isn't a death risk or long term complications, well before 5 years. It really takes only one of the 3 to bring life back to normal.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#77

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

quicklime wrote: post #74
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're being confined to your house over fears of indirectly killing the guy who can't put down the bag of Doritos...well yes. COVID-19 lockdowns are predicated on the vulnerable which includes the obese and chronically ill.

I'm not confined to my house, I'm just taking effortless precautions like wearing a mask. I'm doing this more for my elderly grandparents, and people like them, not some strawman who eats too many Doritos.

> not some strawman who eats too many Doritos

Hold on a second, 42.4% obesity in the US must play into the danger of COVID to the US population. That's a very weird dismissal that doesn't really make sense.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#78

Post by Yetanfou »

latch wrote: post #50
fbonetti wrote: post #11

[deleted]

An article written by an expert in biology and disease and the director of the National Institutes of Health, which summarizes an a article that was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and written by another accomplished medical doctor, isn't scientific enough for you. Why? Because Sweden didn't mandate masks. First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries. Second, even if it had very good num…

> Because Sweden didn't mandate masks.

I can not read the parent post since it was deleted, but...

> First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries.

Then again, most of those deaths occurred in care homes where the infection was spread by personnel who did not follow the personal protection mandates because they could not read the (Swedish) instructions. The number and outcome of infections outside of these facilities does not seem to be markedly different from that in states which have strong masking mandates, Italy being a good example of such.

> Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.

The fact of Swedish numbers - outside of the care facilities which I mentioned above - not being markedly worse than those in places with strong masking mandates does indicate that masking is not an effective way of limiting the spread of the disease, unless those places with strong masking mandates have other practices which lead to increased infection rates which level out the gains from masking compared to Swedish numbers.

There is no doubt that the correct use of the correct type of masks can help limit the spread of aerosol-borne infectious agents. The problem with masking mandates is that most people do not know how to correctly use masks, nor do most people have access to the correct type of mask. Re-using masks, handling potentially infected masks without care, storing used masks together with unused ones in coat pockets, there are many ways in which a masking mandate can negate any potential benefits from masks or even lead to a worse outcome. This is also one of the reasons for the different opinion on whether to implement masking mandates in different countries, e.g. Anders Tegnell (who leads the SARS2-campaign in Sweden) does not support a masking mandate. Fauci did not support masking but has changed his opinion on the matter for reasons as of yet unknown.

Masks do not save lives. Masks can save lives when of the correct type, used correctly. This is a big difference.

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#79

Post by onecommentman »

imglorp wrote: post #47
ransom1538 wrote: post #30

If you are going to wear a mask get a p100 [0]. Removes 99.97% of all particles that are 0.3 microns in diameter or larger. The lame part is covid is: 0.06 microns to .14 microns [1]. In theory though covid will be attached to a larger particle. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fac...

Be aware many of those masks in the CDC list have one-way valves that cause exhalations to be unfiltered. If the wearer is infectious, it doesn't protect people they encounter.

You can close those valves with a simple “hack”. The N95 woodworker mask I have has a plastic guard over the valve. Cut the guard and use an adhesive (I use Sugru) to close the valve. Ugly but effective, and visibly shows the valve has been shut...

Re: Masks could save 130k American lives from COVID19 by March

#80

Post by onecommentman »

Masks seem to me to be a polite way of saying to front-facing retail employees and government workers that I realize your exposure is much greater than mine, I appreciate the risk you are taking, and I will do this small/large gesture to keep you safe. Might help me too, who knows...
Post reply on HN