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

221–230 of 309 posts

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

#221

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

kps wrote: post #214
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The respirators in question have exhalation valves[1], so they definitely wouldn't be normally certified for medical use. [1] https://twitter.com/anndornfeld/status/1241372544764006400/p...

Looked this up… “ Respirators with exhalation valves can be used in a healthcare setting when it is not important to maintain a sterile field (an example of an acceptable practice would be when taking the temperature or blood pressure of a patient). Respirators with exhalation valves should not be used in situations where a sterile field is required (e.g., during an invasive procedure in an operating or procedure roo…

Interesting. It still seems like these respirators would have been earmarked for industrial use, but I didn't realize they could normally be used in healthcare at all.

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

#222

Post by takeda »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #210
takeda wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My bad, last time I heard an expert talking about it that the act was created exactly for this kind of event and Trump was resisting invoking it to not affect private companies. I'm glad he changed his mind.

Still, I think he should stay at home in other states. LA county seems to assume it is beyond containment and now only tests people if that would affect the treatment.

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

#223

Post by aaavl2821 »

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.

The CDC does not say that only n95 or better are worth pursuing

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/f...

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

#224

Post by mbreese »

JamesBarney wrote: post #213
SkyMarshal wrote: post #32

I hope one thing that comes of this outbreak is that all nations develop the processes and capabilities to quickly stop the spread of outbreaks in general. COVID19 is worse than flu, but not as bad as it could have been. We could get hit with something worse in the future. Imagine a strain of Ebola that gestates asymptomatically longer, or another coronavirus with higher mortality rate. This outbreak is good preparat…

Yeah maybe it'll be in place for next time. But this looks to be about a once in a century event. It happened in 1917 and happening now. I doubt we'll handle it better in 2115.

I don’t know about that. A lot of lessons were learned in the 1918 flu pandemic that were applied here. For example, I’ve seen the comparison between the Philadelphia and St Louis responses multiple times in how governments were reacting.

I’m sure there will be lessons here too. The difference in response of between countries is one obvious comparison. But I think another lesson will be how the virus spread globally. With this virus, we have much more information about how the virus was able to spread globally so quickly.

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

#225

Post by koonsolo »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #32

I hope one thing that comes of this outbreak is that all nations develop the processes and capabilities to quickly stop the spread of outbreaks in general. COVID19 is worse than flu, but not as bad as it could have been. We could get hit with something worse in the future. Imagine a strain of Ebola that gestates asymptomatically longer, or another coronavirus with higher mortality rate. This outbreak is good preparat…

I agree with you. A few days ago I made the statement that Covid19 is probably the best thing that could have happened to humanity.

People were already warning us years ago about a pontential pandemic and its impact (including Bill Gates), but we all ignored it.

A real pandemic seemed to be the only way to teach us. So I'm really happy for all of us that it's this moderate one, because it could have been a lot worse.

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

#227

Post by Consultant32452 »

takeda wrote: post #222
Consultant32452 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My bad, last time I heard an expert talking about it that the act was created exactly for this kind of event and Trump was resisting invoking it to not affect private companies. I'm glad he changed his mind. Still, I think he should stay at home in other states. LA county seems to assume it is beyond containment and now only tests people if that would affect the treatment.

I think a big thing that isn't being said is that the government is also attempting to manage civil unrest. There is an old saying about there being a gun behind every blade of grass in this country. We have a very different culture and risk situation than a place like China where they literally welded people's doors shut and let them starve to death.

I think they know certain things need to be done, but they have to also manage expectations and make enough of the population/media/state govt be "demanding" these enforced lock downs before it is really feasible.

Lastly, I think most companies are doing the right thing. 3M is cranking out industrial N95 masks as fast as they can since the govt dropped liability protection (since they are not rated for medical use). GM and others have offered to make ventilators. The defense production act only needs to be invoked if factories/suppliers are not doing the right thing. The specifics of the invocation haven't been announced yet, but I suspect one or more companies started misbehaving, and that resulted in invoking the act.

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

#228

Post by SkyMarshal »

tomp wrote: post #215
SkyMarshal wrote: post #32

I hope one thing that comes of this outbreak is that all nations develop the processes and capabilities to quickly stop the spread of outbreaks in general. COVID19 is worse than flu, but not as bad as it could have been. We could get hit with something worse in the future. Imagine a strain of Ebola that gestates asymptomatically longer, or another coronavirus with higher mortality rate. This outbreak is good preparat…

> overreact early, quickly and briefly People were worried that overreacting (in particular if the outbreak fizzled out, in which case any reaction would have been an overreaction) would damage the economy. Personally, I viewed that as a positive - a decently resilient economy would absorb such short-term shocks without any long-term issues. Easiest way to force-create such an economy? Stress tests (c.f. Netflix’s Ch…

Great idea, 100% agree. Let’s Chaos Monkey all the things, not just Netflix.

> Personally, I viewed that as a positive - a decently resilient economy would absorb such short-term shocks without any long-term issues.

That’s my sense of it too. The markets may fall in the short term, but as soon as the outbreak is stopped, roughly a month later, the markets will recover most or all of their losses.

Politicians so afraid of any stock market fall that they try to minimize the problem instead of treating the root of it are more likely to cause an even bigger market collapse.

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

#229

Post by SkyMarshal »

JamesBarney wrote: post #213
SkyMarshal wrote: post #32

I hope one thing that comes of this outbreak is that all nations develop the processes and capabilities to quickly stop the spread of outbreaks in general. COVID19 is worse than flu, but not as bad as it could have been. We could get hit with something worse in the future. Imagine a strain of Ebola that gestates asymptomatically longer, or another coronavirus with higher mortality rate. This outbreak is good preparat…

Yeah maybe it'll be in place for next time. But this looks to be about a once in a century event. It happened in 1917 and happening now. I doubt we'll handle it better in 2115.

The rate of these things will likely accelerate now that the world is far more interconnected. We’ve had a few scares already - SARS, MERS, Ebola 2014. This is the first one that really went global, but probably won’t be the last for another hundred years.

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

#230

Post by lopmotr »

wutbrodo wrote: post #178
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…

> I totally understand that, collectively, we need to be lied to for our own protection, because collectively we become a bunch of idiots. This is a tall order in the modern informational environment. There are enough honest people out there that the truth will filter out, first to people who think critically and then as a meme to be swallowed uncritically by the masses. Then you just end up further damaging the cred…

People don't work that way. Social status is always more important than truth. For socially suppressed knowledge, individuals can find it out for themselves if they want, but they can't share it or they'll be ostracized for heresy. So most people won't want to even find out when even expressing curiosity is an offence and they'll work to punish those who do share it because that helps them to be accepted by the majority.
Post reply on HN