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

191–200 of 309 posts

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

#191

Post by davrosthedalek »

seanwilson wrote: post #136
Thriptic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very irritating because people don't understand the concept of defense in depth. Are surgical masks going to give you total protection? Of course not, but as you say they provide SOME benefit. Saying "masks don't work because they don't fully stop the virus and users misuse them" is basically equivalent to saying "code review is a waste of time because it won't catch every bug and because devs don't do it correc…

> Are surgical masks going to give you total protection? Of course not, but as you say they provide SOME benefit Face protection must surely have the side-benefit as well that it signals to others to keep your distance and that this is a serious situation.

Or they see a mask and think: Ok, cool, I can come close, I'm protected by the mask the person is wearing. Don't forget, people ate tide-pods.

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

#192

Post by takeda »

RotaryTelephone wrote: post #157
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did the right thing, don’t let anyone pressure you to feel otherwise. Retail stocks of masks for things like painting or carpentry are not at all related to depriving medical supplies. Also for N95 masks, the filter size is about 3x wider than the size of coronavirus. Meaning it provides _a lot_ of protection. It’s not a way to fully prevent anything, but a door only 3x wide lets in way way way fewer things than…

I think you mean 1/3rd as wide... 3x means a door that's three times bigger than a regular door. X means multiply.

3x sounds more likely than x1/3.

The thing is that even if it is bigger than virus it still stops part of it.

Especially if it is true that virus is is not airborne and spreads through droplets.

In that case even scarf might be better than nothing (you should wash it often though).

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

#193

Post by Symmetry »

ejstronge wrote: post #145
Symmetry wrote: post #131

Rather than just blaming the CDC, I think the real problem here has been the lack of coordination between the CDC and FDA? CDC: Our test is going to be so much better than the WHO's, we'll test for SARS-CoV-2 in two samples and also test for other simultaneous infections in this third part! FDA: Approved Hospitals: Hey, we can't get that third part to work! CDC: That's ok, just use the first two parts, that's all you…

> FDA: Sure, just make sure to fill out these forms, be sure to send them to us by mail rather than email, and oh, make sure to test against the original SARS to make sure your test doesn't give a false SARS-CoV-19 reading if they patient just has that. > Laboratory: Uh, sure. Hey, CDC, can I have a sample of SARS to test against? I've been trying to stay on top of the testing saga, but it's been hard with all the da…

From here:

>The officials at the FDA instructed him to test his test against the MERS and SARS viruses, which are also coronaviruses. It wasn’t a terrible idea, Greninger thought. Why not develop a test that catches all these deadly coronaviruses all at once? It did seem strange, however, that the FDA was asking for this in an emergency use application: by this point, COVID-19 cases had appeared in six states. (The FDA did not respond to a list of questions about the process.)

>Still, Greninger complied. He called the CDC to inquire about getting some genetic material from a sample of SARS. The CDC, Greninger says, politely turned him down: the genetic material of the extremely contagious and deadly SARS virus was highly restricted.

https://www.gq.com/story/inside-americas-coronavirus-testing...

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

#194

Post by takeda »

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

Doesn't change the fact that they are trying: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/doj-susp...

That makes it extra scary.

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

#195

Post by takeda »

ceejayoz wrote: post #39
tathougies wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I suspect this was voluntary, but governors and the President have a lot of extra powers once an emergency is formally declared. (Which it has.) For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950

And they still didn't invoke it, but instead asking for this https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/doj-susp...

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

#196

Post by 1996 »

dempseye wrote: post #122
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.

Ask them again in a week.

Or make the offer right now to health workers who've been it's perfectly fine to interact with covid patients without any mask.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. The amount of medical waste is shocking - as if tools went from 100% effective 100% safe to 0% effective 100% at midnight.

I suppose there is a strong cover-your-ass factor at play, that can only be overridden when they have some skin in the game (as in, risk being infected due to 0 mask)

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

#197

Post by take_a_breath »

ardy42 wrote: post #158
Thriptic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very irritating because people don't understand the concept of defense in depth. Are surgical masks going to give you total protection? Of course not, but as you say they provide SOME benefit. Saying "masks don't work because they don't fully stop the virus and users misuse them" is basically equivalent to saying "code review is a waste of time because it won't catch every bug and because devs don't do it correc…

> Are surgical masks going to give you total protection? Of course not, but as you say they provide SOME benefit. Saying "masks don't work because they don't fully stop the virus and users misuse them" Surgical masks aren't about protecting the wearer from everyone else, they're about protecting everyone else from the wearer [1]. They may provide the wearer some protection, but that's not really the point. The emphas…

In a scenario where we don’t have enough tests to determine who does and doesn’t have this virus, shouldn’t be we encourage more mask wearing?

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

#198

Post by davrosthedalek »

ISL wrote: post #127
ceejayoz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government does not just take property lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

Or, closer to the issue at hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain I don't have time to look right now, but I suspect most states (and the feds) have the ability to repurpose private assets in emergencies, with some constraints.

That requires "just compensation".

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

#199

Post by Congeec »

Symmetry wrote: post #131

Rather than just blaming the CDC, I think the real problem here has been the lack of coordination between the CDC and FDA? CDC: Our test is going to be so much better than the WHO's, we'll test for SARS-CoV-2 in two samples and also test for other simultaneous infections in this third part! FDA: Approved Hospitals: Hey, we can't get that third part to work! CDC: That's ok, just use the first two parts, that's all you…

It's called SARS-Cov-2, not -19

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

#200

Post by gkanai »

asiachick wrote: post #167

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 p…

I am also confused by Japan's situation. The one thing that I don't think Japan can fake is the death rate. As long as the death rate does not significantly rise, somehow Japan is keeping control of the virus without the significant changes to life that were necessary in other places.
Post reply on HN