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

How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 309 posts

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#101

Post by quietthrow »

rflrob wrote: post #44
nikhizzle wrote: post #20

My concern here is that bad decisions were made early on in the US, and there will be no accountability. What do mechanisms for accountability here look like? Will they be used? Edit: And more importantly how will we prevent theses same mistakes from happening again?

Congressional hearings are one big way to hold the executive branch publicly accountable. Then, there’s the election. My sense is that a lot of the bad decisions don’t necessarily rise to the level of negligence, so civil/criminal penalties are unlikely.

Are congressional hearing just a tame way of public shaming? Or is there more to it. I feel it’s just a slap on the wrist most of the time.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#102

Post by eecc »

XorNot wrote: post #56
deelowe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more frustrating is the exact same logic applies to "social distancing." Social distancing will not completely stop people from getting sick. It'll just slow the spread. So, according to the CDC, an imperfect solution for quarantine is totally fine, but when it comes to masks, only n95 or better are worth pursuing.

It's quite likely that in all the scenarios a mask may have a useful effect, N95 or better is the only time it works. For medical professionals in close contact with patients and dealing with airborne-protocol pathogens (which is what a droplet-mediated pathogens like SARS2 becomes classed as once patients are coughing and being intubated) then a bad mask is quite probably worse then no mask (this has precedent: inef…

This is about Influenza but I doubt it’s that different from Corona: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20497389/

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#103

Post by bilbo0s »

jplayer01 wrote: post #41
bilbo0s wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masks should just be a given. If we consider a place like South Korea, or Singapore, the executive actions contrast wildly with the executive actions that our city, state, and federal governments have taken. If I'm not mistaken, in Singapore they even went so far as to distribute packs of masks to each and every family. I don't ask for that level of efficiency, but it does illustrate an example of effective executive…

> I don't ask for that level of efficiency, Well, why the crap not? Why is the west so unbelievably bad at handling this epidemic? Why aren't we able to produce our own masks? These things are essential and it was all off-shored to China. Now the west is screwed while life goes on in Asia.

Actually, we do produce masks. Right here in the US.

We just didn't order up enough in the ramp up to prepare for the surge the way the government did in Singapore.

As to the question of competence, well, I guess maybe I should demand the eastern level of competence out of my leaders. But what good does it do to demand something that you know from the outset your leaders are not capable of? We have the leaders we have. I can't change that right now. The only thing we can do collectively is to try to get the best we can out of them, realizing that it's very likely their best ain't gonna be anywhere near asia level efficiency.

Maybe one of the good things to come out of this crisis will be a demand for higher quality stewards. Maybe we'll get much higher quality candidates at election time? But in all honesty, I kind of doubt it.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#104

Post by MiroF »

tathougies wrote: post #33
ceejayoz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington state just seized a restock from a Target in Seattle. https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1241505423259099136

I hope by seized e means try bought them at market price. While supportive of strict social distancing measures I do not think any governor or president can suddenly start tossing basic civil rights. The rise of authoritarian language from state leaders is very concerning

It should be seized and compensated with eminent domain.

Buying implies right of refusal and no, I don't think that Target should be able to stockpile N95 masks in its warehouses.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#105

Post by reddog »

jliptzin wrote: post #34
erentz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole blaming people for hoarding masks and then the "masks don't work" things have been incredibly frustrating. It is almost like authorities didn't want anyone to start asking why the public couldn't get masks, as they can in say Taiwan. Most (if not all) distributors and manufacturers of masks has been prioritizing health care systems and governments over retailers since January. Just as they should do. Were t…

Yea this is really frustrating. I bought a box of 10 N-95s in January when I saw what was going on in China and figured they’d be good to have, since I have older people in my family who are in poor health (leukemia, diabetes, heart disease). Now since I’m shopping and cooking for them, I am trying really hard not to get sick so I wear a mask to the stores and I’m getting looks from people like I stole them from a ho…

>How about we blame the government for not ramping up production of masks back in January

or not having a strategic reserve of masks, gloves and suits in a giant warehouse somewhere. You could rotate the stock though the marketplace during safe times so it would cost little. Probably less than the CDCs $110 million dollar visitors center.

What kind of pandemic was the government preparing for? One that did not need n95 masks and disposable gloves? One that wouldn't see a shortage of PPE?

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#106

Post by wbl »

bilbo0s wrote: post #29
sonicggg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something does not add up about the advice. Specially given that Eastern authorities encourage the use of makes by the general public. Which part of the World is better handling this pandemic?

Masks should just be a given. If we consider a place like South Korea, or Singapore, the executive actions contrast wildly with the executive actions that our city, state, and federal governments have taken. If I'm not mistaken, in Singapore they even went so far as to distribute packs of masks to each and every family. I don't ask for that level of efficiency, but it does illustrate an example of effective executive…

You should. Don't you deserve good goverment?

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#107

Post by longerthoughts »

the8472 wrote: post #57
ISL wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a resolution to the paradox. Masks do work (especially when worn correctly), but the net-optimal place to put them to work is keeping medical personnel up and functional. Have spare masks? We are trying to get them to the people who need them most: https://findthemasks.com/ We are presently listing hospitals accepting small-scale donations in 28 states, growing fast.

That's not a resolution because the claim is that they're useless ("not effective"), which is not the same as there existing a better use. They could have communicated the truth, instead they chose to lie, which erodes trust. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...

If they’d said something like “they’re effective but it’s better for all of us if these people get them instead of you” would that have been effective?

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#108

Post by Symmetry »

skipwalker wrote: post #58
tyingq wrote: post #5

The mask guidance is confusing as well. I get they are trying to preserve masks for medical staff. But, they also say it's mainly spread by coughing, sneezing, and resulting spray of bodily fluids. Surely even a scarf around your face would have some benefit? Yes, I get that the virus is small enough to pass through, but some deflection is better than none.

I found a few links on making "ninja" masks out of t-shirts. They seem as good as any. The best thing is you can just throw them in the washing machine after an outing. https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Ninja-Mask http://www.funlol.com/1255/Ninja_Instructions!.html “Origami” tea cloth mask with rubber bands https://www.instagram.com/p/B96rcR8neYv/

There was a paper that went by my Twitter feed yesterday about how dish towels tended to do better on the particulates the researchers were testing on than a t-shirt (or piece of silk, or double layer cotton shirt, or...). I agree about them being better than nothing and it'll be fairly dependent on aerosol size but you should probably prefer thicker clothes.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#109

Post by catalogia »

ceejayoz wrote: post #85
catalogia wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More masks is better than fewer masks, even if they are distributed sub-optimaly.

Target is not making masks. Target is buying masks for resale. The US government, given any sense, should be forbidding private sale of these masks until there's enough supply in hospitals and other critical spots. It shouldn't be hard for a mask distributor to find a hospital willing to buy right now.

The action sends a message to the producers of masks too; that they shouldn't bother trying to meet the public's demand for masks by massively scaling up production because the government won't allow those sales. By suppressing perceived demand for masks, the economics of scaling up production become less appealing to manufacturers.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#110

Post by magwa101 »

Oh, data, that pesky thing. I go here, and observe rate of change (log) graphs. I ignore linear body counts, which all the headlines scream: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Italy is flattening and exponential growth becomes exponential decay.

Post reply on HN