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

161–170 of 309 posts

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

#161

Post by jayd16 »

throwaway32120 wrote: post #141
davelacy wrote: post #31

CDC has there shortcomings, no doubt but let’s not forget who’s truly to blame for the mess we’re in now. The trump administration’s disbandment of federal institutions created to combat this and the ongoing denial of a serious problem have led to a collapsing economy and isolation of millions. Good article here for sure but let’s not pass the blame to the CDC. We know who to blame...

One of the problems with the hyperpartisanship in America is that it prevents people from acknowledging leadership problems that both parties share. Though I think that Trump has done an incredibly poor job of handling this crisis, there's little evidence that other leaders - in Congress, at the state level, in the media, etc. - have done any better. Of course all our leaders will want to blame other people right now…

This is a failure of the executive branch. Congress did its job long ago. The executive branch already had the legal means it needed but the administration chose to abdicate its responsibility.

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

#162

Post by mrdrozdov »

The actual title is: How the CDC’s Restrictive Testing Guidelines Hid the Coronavirus Epidemic

This is very different from guidelines in general. Encouraging people to avoid large crowds, wash their hands and wipe surfaces, and possibly self-quarantine could have made a huge impact earlier on.

Instead, people kept going to bars, concerts, and traveling. A lot could have been done, and testing is only part of the story.

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

#163

Post by Munky-Necan »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #147
Munky-Necan wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl was projected to kill millions. The top epidemiologists in the world projected in the most realistic scenarios that the death toll would have been in the millions prior to the quarantines. Both could have been prevented if people knew the truth well in advance of the crisis. Call it hyperbole, but the Spanish Flu killed millions because the public was not told the truth soon enough. We were likewise told th…

Don't you think it's more likely that the Spanish flu was so widespread because of the unhygienic conditions and stressed infrastructure caused by World War 1?

Not at all. Good sanitation is going to prevent mainly oral-fecal spread of disease, but H1N1 (Swine flu is the most recent H1N1 pandemic) is droplet/airborne spread. Hand washing and physical distancing are key here.

If you're asking about hand washing practices in that era and if that would have prevented the spread, absolutely. Hand washing attenuated SARS spread during the 2002 epidemic by roughly ~50% [1]. I am not an expert in history so I cannot speak to hand hygeine practices during that era. What current research is suggesting is that H1N1 spread was exacerbated by a lack of knowledge to the public [2]. Time and time again public health is predicated on the right knowledge given as quickly as possible; this is the most important key to almost every single disease spread[3].

1)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323085/

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Spread

3) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1006/bulm.2002.0317

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

#164

Post by m4rtink »

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…

What needs to happen is making mask wearing mandatory for anyone in the public.

If both parties have a mask, even just made at home from a piece of cloth or even a scarf, the risk of one party infecting the other goes way down, even without sophisticated respirators being used.

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

#165

Post by blhack »

Munky-Necan wrote: post #37

My colleagues are out of PPE and now using scarves because we are so under supplied. CDC guidelines were just changed to allow staff to be exposed to COVID patients without properly protecting themselves. I was talking with some physicians and providers when I said that I think this will be the Chernobyl like moment of our era: where the truth is hidden from people to prevent a panic paradoxically exacerbating the cu…

Where are you located?

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

#166

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#167

Post by asiachick »

I'm still trying to understand why Japan's numbers are so low. You can argue they aren't testing but if the infection rate is similar then the death rate should be similar was well regardless of testing or not.

They aren't staying home. Restaurants, bars, and events are still open. Trains are still packed at rush hour. Festivals are still happening. They're planning on starting school in April.

I can only see a few possibilities

(1) the numbers are false and Japan's death rate is going to accelerate

(2) the numbers are true but it's still coming

(3) Something about Japanese culture already limits the spread.

I don't believe this one. Japanese might wear masks but not all of them wear masks and they are not N95 masks. Japanese are also known to go to work sick, go to cafes sick, visit friends and family sick. Places are crowded. Open and over crowded offices everywhere.

(4) Something about Japanese genetics makes them less likely to have a strong reaction

I have no idea how to tell which of those it is except to see where they are in a few weeks. If the death rate rises it was (1) or (2). If not then it must be (3) or (4)?

Here's their latest graph. The 2 shallow lines at the bottom are Singapore (bottom) and Japan (2nd from bottom). The rest are Italy, Spain, Germany, France going left to right at the top.

https://rpr.c.yimg.jp/im_sigg.R1UwQuI2tgBhV1fzJ5o7A---x799-n...

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

#168

Post by temac »

kriro wrote: post #115
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.

That standard argument is a myth simply used to shape opinion in the context of a shortage of masks, to redirect the existing one to health care workers.

In countries where the epidemic is controlled, pretty much everybody wear masks, including handcrafted one in case of shortage. The goal is not to prevent from being infected, but to prevent infecting other, by limiting the amount of saliva you spread everywhere. Especially since tons of carriers are asymptomatic, or starting to be contagious before becoming symptomatic. And even a poor mask in front of your mouth is better than nothing, at least if everybody wears one, and if you don't become careless on other measures (distancing, washing the hands, etc.)

So there is an availability and potentially a cultural problem, but that can and should be fixed. Because this will be far less costly than infinite lockdowns.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

yread wrote: post #156
ellius wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are two "mental tools" I wish we could teach every person, they are exponential growth and statistical thinking. Neither is intuitive, but they would help people understand this whole situation (and many others) a lot better.

I like to think that every contact outside increases risks. And conversely, to keep my sanity, that every prevented contact helps reduce the risk a little bit

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by blhack »

Munky-Necan wrote: post #113
XorNot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kid…

Fauci is a hero in every sense of the word right now.
Post reply on HN