Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#161

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 1:43 AM UTC

jtdev wrote: post #160

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M -: 3M's general offices, corporate research laboratories, and some division laboratories in the US are in St. Paul, Minnesota. In the United States, 3M operates 80 manufacturing facilities in 29 states, and 125 manufacturing and converting facilities in 37 countries outside the US (in 2017).[66] I don’t believe 3M would buy white-label products, they employ several hundred resear…

Quote from a Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal article related to the mask manufacturing ramp up at 3M for COVID19: “‘We're seeing increased demand for our respiratory protection products, and we're ramping up our production worldwide, in China, around the world to meet that demand.’ (Mike Roman, 3M CEO)” [0] Nothing about that statement gives me any confidence that a single 3M N95 mask is produced in the U.S. In…

Yes, sorry, my previous respond didn’t answer your question.

I agree, you’d think if they were producing masks in the US they would make that clear.

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#162

Post by brigandish » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 3:16 AM UTC

angrais wrote: post #157

brigandish wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't discount the possibility that figures are being massaged in various ways. One is the obvious lack of widespread testing. Another is the reports of people with symptoms being turned away. Then there are the kodokushi [0] numbers which are a clue to how the government already deals with uncomfortable mortality figures - let alone those kudokushi who may die because of the virus - and a over a million deaths a yea…

When saying kodokushi, why not just say "old people that die alone"?

Because having a special term for something implies its widespread nature.

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#163

Post by brigandish » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 3:20 AM UTC

taeric wrote: post #148

craftinator wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of thoughts I have, but I'm puzzled as well. My first explanation is that the Japanese are simply more hyegeinic than most other countries I've been to. Fastidious is the word that comes to mind. They wash hands often, wear clean clothes, wear masks or stay home when sick, don't shake hands or touch often. Second explanation that comes to mind is that they tend to be just healthier than other count…

The first one could explain why it isn't spreading there. Without testing, hard to know if that is accurate. Reports from other threads supports that it is there, but not severe cases. (Sadly, anecdotes...) Second is also tougher to square. The risk pool is supposedly older people, per reports from Italy. But, that doesn't seem to square with age profiles of Japanese. So??

One difference could be that old people in Japan are all too often living a solitary existence or not in frequent touch with their family. My wife brought this up last night as I was discussing this thread with her and out of everything I've seen, read, and considered, this seems to be the one thing that could stop it - they were already socially distancing the most vulnerable group.

Still, there's a long way to go for this thing.

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#164

Post by hatenberg » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 4:42 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #87

hatenberg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mindset and the ideological blinders it introduces is a huge problem. When china went aggressive on the virus people looked at it as draconian measures because of the ideological lens, not looking further to see the measures were absolutely necessary by scientific fact. When Singapore started to spring into action, the western press was musing about election posturing all the while nobody prepared. Ideology kill…

Small city-states (Singapore, Hong Kong) with dense urban populations were always more cautious about epidemics. And it's not like no one was speaking about how unprepared the 'West' has been for years. (Bill Gates' TED talk is making the rounds now that talks exactly about this.) It's not ideology. Not morality. It's simply a matter of cost-benefit analysis. Public health has been put on the backburner for decades,…

Well that calculation is about to backfire dramatically.

Cost - benefit for reelection is a key failure point in our system

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#165

Post by jtdev » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 12:36 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #81

wbl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3M is in Minnesota. There was no effort to make more masks in the months we had. This is entirely a failure of government at all levels.

3M and the various US surgical mask manufacturers have been ramping up production since, if I remember rightly, January, but that's not enough to cope with even the normal demand for them let alone the extra supplies needed due to the coronavirus.

There’s zero evidence that I can find showing that a single N95 mask is actually currently manufactured in the U.S.

Quote from a Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal article related to the mask manufacturing ramp up at 3M for COVID19: “‘We're seeing increased demand for our respiratory protection products, and we're ramping up our production worldwide, in China, around the world to meet that demand.’ (Mike Roman, 3M CEO)” [0]

Nothing about that statement gives me any confidence that a single 3M N95 mask is produced in the U.S. In fact, it sounds downright evasive to me.

[0] https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2020/01/29/3ms-c...

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#166

Post by brigandish » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

fspeech wrote: post #149

taeric wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would need testing to show they don't have a prevalence of "mild" cases. Not to mention we should have numbers on how often they wear masks. Last I saw, it was not everyone that did that. Edit for reference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E7kor5nHtZQ

80% compliance would eliminate flu outbreaks and flu is upper respiratory. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30229968 The New Yorker article we are supposedly discussing literally says the coronavirus is not very efficient even in hospital settings. I am familiar with crowded trains in East Asia. Your video does not have time marker so I assume it is not taken recently.

People don't wear N95 masks here, they wear cheap masks you can pick up in any drug store for just a few coins.

How would an entire country obtain N95 masks and training and proper fitting (it's done by trained fitters) and dispose of them properly, and do that daily? (if not more often)

Every time I go out I see the cheapo ones left in the street because there's a vague notion they should be disposed of "properly" so I don't see this idea working at all.

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#167

Post by fspeech » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #166

fspeech wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% compliance would eliminate flu outbreaks and flu is upper respiratory. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30229968 The New Yorker article we are supposedly discussing literally says the coronavirus is not very efficient even in hospital settings. I am familiar with crowded trains in East Asia. Your video does not have time marker so I assume it is not taken recently.

People don't wear N95 masks here, they wear cheap masks you can pick up in any drug store for just a few coins. How would an entire country obtain N95 masks and training and proper fitting (it's done by trained fitters) and dispose of them properly, and do that daily? (if not more often) Every time I go out I see the cheapo ones left in the street because there's a vague notion they should be disposed of "properly" s…

Public mask wearing prevents the wearer from emitting droplets. You don't need n95 for that. Also please read the article in discussion, this virus is not that easy to transmit, even for hospital workers.

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#168

Post by brigandish » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

fspeech wrote: post #167

brigandish wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't wear N95 masks here, they wear cheap masks you can pick up in any drug store for just a few coins. How would an entire country obtain N95 masks and training and proper fitting (it's done by trained fitters) and dispose of them properly, and do that daily? (if not more often) Every time I go out I see the cheapo ones left in the street because there's a vague notion they should be disposed of "properly" s…

Public mask wearing prevents the wearer from emitting droplets. You don't need n95 for that. Also please read the article in discussion, this virus is not that easy to transmit, even for hospital workers.

How does an R0 greater than 1 in every country and population the virus is present in square with "this virus is not that easy to transmit"?

I can't do it.

> read the article

Okay, maybe they can square it:

> Luckily, methods were found that protected all the new health-care workers: none—zero—were infected.

> But those methods were Draconian. As the city was locked down and cut off from outside visitors, health-care workers seeing at-risk patients were housed away from their families. They wore full-body protective gear, including goggles, complete head coverings, N95 particle-filtering masks, and hazmat-style suits.

They failed, it was probably the use of "Draconian" that let them down.

I also read the paper you provided, not just the abstract, and it spends a lot of its time talking about N95 masks. Here is from a part it spends on facemasks:

> whereas for the facemasks the efficiency can vary from 10% to 90% (Guha et al., 2017)

Have you read Guha's paper? I've got it here. I have so many problems with someone relying on that paper beyond its narrow applicable scope. I wonder if they've ever worn a mask. I digress.

Additionally (we're back to the paper you shared), you should count how many times "except the low-filtration adult surgical mask" or some combination of those words following except comes up in that paper.

It's also a model and not a study. Let me know when there's a study that shows masks work (the Guha paper mentioned is a study, in a lab, not using people or even a model of a face), in use by the general public, in the kind of settings they wear them, and it's the kind of masks they usually wear.

Re: Keeping the coronavirus from infecting healthcare workers

#169

Post by ravenstine » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #125

ravenstine wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, I wish people would stop popping into discussions about coronavirus to say " Actually, ... ". Most educated people know that viruses aren't alive in the traditional sense. People who aren't as educated simply don't care, and I don't blame them. Using the more scientifically precise term helps nobody, except scientists, in this situation. Should software engineers stop using the word "kill" in POSIX-land…

I didn't bat an eye at this until you dropped in with a "Respectfully..." that sounded awfully insincere. Did your sentence really intend to convey respect? Because it came off as disingenuous.

You're searching for malice where there is none. I said nothing disrespectful.