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

111–120 of 309 posts

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

#111

Post by MiroF »

nprz wrote: post #95
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.

Except that wasn't the actual message coming from the Surgeon General. The original message appears to intentionally obscure the fact that not only does the US not have enough masks for our civilians, we also don't have enough masks for our health care professionals.

In emergency situations, it's possible misleading the public might be somewhat necessary to reach optimal health outcomes. There is substantial literature on this question with regards to climate change messaging.

The government already misleads the public when it exaggerates things like the actual threat of terrorism to the average American, at least this time it is lying with some sort of societal good in mind.

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

#112

Post by Symmetry »

ceejayoz wrote: post #13
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.

"Why Telling People They Don’t Need Masks Backfired: To help manage the shortage, the authorities sent a message that made them untrustworthy." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-... And some data back from SARS: "Always wearing a mask when going out was associated with a 70% reduction in risk compared with never wearing a mask. Wearing a mask intermittently was associated with a smaller yet…

I think the thing is that most people will naturally treat things qualitatively. A mask either protects you or it doesn't. A substance is either a poison or it isn't. Etc.

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

#113

Post by Munky-Necan »

XorNot wrote: post #80
CriticalCathed wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so completely blowing this crisis out of proportion. I am so confused by the tenor of the discourse on HN. I expected more from this place.

This pandemic is potentially going to kill a lot more people then Chernobyl did. And permanently injure (via lung function damage) many more.

The common complications, of those initially hospitalized(note this limits our extrapolation for population), that were observed in Wuhan were ARDS, acute cardiac injury 7.2%, acute kidney injury 3.6% [1]. This is most likely analogous to having a mild heart attack(we need to read the EKG and labs here to elucidate the actual prognosis), which is still concerning because long term prognosis is usually poor. Acute kidney injury usually progresses to chronic kidney injury.

On top of both of these you're more than correct that lung function will likely decrease. This virus kills lung tissues and although we have cells that are there to heal lungs, SARS-CoV-2 tissue tropism is highest for these cells (ACE2 receptors on type II pneumocytes).

Dr. Facui is one of the most respected scientists in the medical field. He's either in the top ten or right around the top ten of the most referenced. He is the reason why HIV has killed only ~50 million people. I'm building his credibility because he has stated that he hopes we're over reacting to this [2-3].

1)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570/

2) https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/487639-fauci-...

3) https://www.axios.com/fauci-coronavirus-overreaction-decc88f...

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

#114

Post by ceejayoz »

catalogia wrote: post #109
ceejayoz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government can, and should, guarantee they'll purchase as many as you can make right now.

They could, in fact, order that production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950

Trump's been hemming and hawing on invoking it for several days now.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/medical-orgs-urge-trump-t...

> Health care professionals from the American Hospital Association (AHA), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Nurses Association (ANA) sent a joint letter to President Donald Trump on Saturday pleading for more medical supplies amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

> In the letter, the three organizations implored Trump to utilize the Defense Production Act (DPA) to help with the “dwindling supplies” of respirators, surgical masks, and other necessary tools.

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

#115

Post by kriro »

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.

The standard argument is that a mask may give you a false sense of safety which results in subtle behavioral changes that are a net-negative. Additionally if the mask inhibits breathing you might take deeper breaths which is also a net-negative.

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

#116

Post by sp332 »

viceroyalbean wrote: post #25
sp332 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gives me a Cloudflare DNS resolution error.

Archive.is is inaccessible via Cloudlfare DNS, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317

I was about to say "I don't use Cloudflare DNS" but eventually I remembered that Firefox's DoH defaults to that. Thanks.

Options -> Network Settings -> DoH provider

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

#117

Post by tathougies »

tathougies wrote: post #71
sigmar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDC budget for FY '18 was lower than FY '17. Source: https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2018/budget-in-brief/cdc/...

Maybe you should try contacting politifact with the correction? I dont disagree with your source obviously but several major fact checking websites are reporting the opposite.

Still according to factcheck.org, with links to contemporaneous news articles indicates that all trump admin budgets are higher than the last obama one (fy17).

Doing some more analysis it seem that the figures you posted include emergency funding the cdc received for things like zika. These are not part of the standard budget. For example in fy16, they include retained funds for swine flu which expired. If you remove these you as the trends reported in the news.

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

#118

Post by Jare »

catalogia wrote: post #97
Jare wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- If you tell the public that masks are great protection, and the public can't find then to buy, that is a huge source of unrest. - The messaging (in Spain but looks similar everywhere) has been that you should wear one if you are sick or, more importantly here, if you are at risk. This is a clear indication that they do help protect against being infected. This should have prevented everyone from harassing anyone we…

If people are collectively idiots, then telling 'white' lies like this only throws fuel on the fire by eroding what little trust people have in genuine authorities/experts. Without trust in those authorities/experts, the 'idiot' collective masses will behave even stupider.

It's my impression that at this point in time, eroding trust in a targeted way is very easy, and there's plenty of people doing it, out of partisanship, greed, or even plain stupidity. The collective "we" have allowed trust in genuine experts to be low and brittle.

So, it makes sense for experts to put little value in trying to preserve it, when trying to balance the value of other courses of action. It sucks, but in their shoes I would do the same.

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

#119

Post by s0rce »

jtms wrote: post #98

I have a box of n95 masks I bought a few years back while living in Singapore (there is an annual smoke “haze” there from neighboring countries burning forest to clear land for palm oil production). I tried to give them to a nurse to distribute to other medical staff, but they couldn’t use them because they are a year or so beyond the expiration. News to me that masks even have an expiration date.

Pretty much everything has an expiry date because the manufacturer has guaranteed its still effective up to that date. Doing that requires time and money. This doesn't mean the masks doesn't work after the expiry date (although it might be less effective) simply that the performance isn't guaranteed and most likely hasn't been tested sufficiently.

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

#120

Post by the8472 »

longerthoughts wrote: post #107
the8472 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They could have avoided making any direct comment on effectiveness and simply stated that access by medical personnel needs to be prioritized since they're the most exposed group.
Post reply on HN