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

201–210 of 309 posts

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

#201

Post by kps »

dahart wrote: post #87
XorNot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. You’re saying you think anything less than an N95 has 0 effectiveness. Why do you believe this is likely? Are you aware of the data that says otherwise? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22655436 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t...

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“As worn by health care personnel in this trial, use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

To be clear, this trail was for outpatient care — not necessarily applicable to shoving tubes down throats, but probably applicable to people walking down the street.

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

#202

Post by kps »

deelowe wrote: post #40
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…

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.

> So, according to the CDC … only n95 or better are worth pursuing.

Current CDC guidance is “facemasks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand”.¹

¹ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/...

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

#203

Post by Consultant32452 »

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…

>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.

I think you're confusing the normal use for these masks with what they are actually capable of doing. Yes, in a surgical setting the masks are worn primarily to protect the patient from the surgeon, but the masks do work both ways. Here's a citation from an infectious disease specialist:

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/surgical-mas...

>“Yes, a surgical mask can help prevent the flu,” Sherif Mossad, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, tells Health. “Flu is carried in air droplets, so a mask would mechanically prevent the flu virus from reaching other people.” It would work both ways, says Dr. Mossad, preventing transmission of the flu virus to others and for keeping a mask-wearer from picking up an infection.

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

#204

Post by RobAtticus »

magwa101 wrote: post #110

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.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

Italy new cases did flatten to 3500-4000 per day for a few days this past week, but they have since resumed increasing on a daily basis. So I don't think they are out of the woods yet. It may not be exponential, but it is very much super-linear

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

#205

Post by davrosthedalek »

the8472 wrote: post #120
longerthoughts wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

TP hoarders will think: So if access to them is prioritized, they are obviously very effective, and if there is a need to prioritize, I should keep mine/get more, because I won't be able to get them later.

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

#206

Post by davrosthedalek »

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.

To be fair, at least a part of them problem "not enough masks for our health care professionals" is caused by some civilians hoarding them.

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

#207

Post by ardy42 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #203
ardy42 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. I think you're confusing the normal use for these masks with what they are actually capable of doing. Yes, in a surgical setting the masks are worn primarily to protect the patient from the surgeon, but the mask…

>> 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.

> I think you're confusing the normal use for these masks with what they are actually capable of doing. Yes, in a surgical setting the masks are worn primarily to protect the patient from the surgeon, but the masks do work both ways. Here's a citation:

I wasn't confused. That's why I said they may provide the wearer some protection. The 3M YouTube video I linked even quantifies this, by measuring and comparing leakage between a surgical mask and an N95 respirator.

But that's not the point. Don't wear a mask to protect yourself, wear a mask to protect others.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] »

tathougies wrote: post #46
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...

Evidence? CDC has more funding than ever. And it's a myth trump got rid of the pandemic team at NSC. They just renamed it the bioterrorism team after people left. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/17/instagram-... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/12/joy-behar/...

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by davrosthedalek »

dahart wrote: post #15
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.

Agreed; I believe a scarf around your face will have some benefit. The CDC’s current guidance is about “respirators”, and maybe they’re not saying anything at all about plain masks or scarves, but studies posted here on HN in the last 2 days have shown some positive effectiveness for any kind of mask at all. I’ve heard first hand from a friend in Shenzhen China - where they are now back at work - that they are certai…

To your last point, I would worry about that. If you are not used to it, you might want to re-adjust it quite often, and you have to take it off at some point. It is really hard to not touch your face. I probably touched it twice writing this.

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

#210

Post by Consultant32452 »

takeda wrote: post #175
susanhi wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You should wear one if you are sick” Asymptomatic carriers are showing as a large contributor of spread. We should have a mandate for masks for everyone (since we don’t know who is a carrier or not) and government should contract manufacturers to ramp production ASAP to meet the demand. China and South Korea has ramped productions and is allocating 2 masks per week per resident. US has 330 million people. 2 per pers…

There was an act passed (I don't remeber its name, but it was meant for situations like this) that allows government to force factories to produce needed materials. Yet government refused to use it, they refuse to invoke stay in place in remaining states. They blocked states from doing testing, bidding against states for supplies and cherry on top DOJ secretly asked if they can suspend constitutional rights to allow…

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/18/coro...

Trump has invoked exactly the act you're referring to. I'm not interested in any debate, just wanted to let you know it has been done.

Post reply on HN