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

281–290 of 309 posts

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

#281

Post by dahart »

kps wrote: post #201
dahart wrote: post #87

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. 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 fo…

That quote is saying that N95 masks are no better than medical masks, not that medical masks have 0 effectiveness.

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

#282

Post by dahart »

mbreese wrote: post #212
dahart wrote: post #87

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. 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...

The data from the Davies paper is not very convincing. The home made solutions offered significantly less protection and and had major problems with fit. Even their conclusions were — it’s better than nothing, but not a proper substitute. > However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorgan- isms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not re…

Better than nothing is the whole point. N95 masks are not a substitute for avoiding exposure in the first place, but nobody’s saying N95 masks are ineffective because of that fact.

The recommendation here is assuming you have access to something better. If you have no access to something better, a homemade mask is better than no mask at all, until you can get something better. As others have pointed out here, it’s rather odd to suggest we should scoff at this imperfect solution, when there are no perfect solutions short of 100% full and complete quarantine, which is completely unrealistic.

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

#283

Post by dahart »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #209
dahart wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course you take it off when you get home... so? Yes, it is hard not to touch your face, which is why having a mask on it helps you remember not to... just try it. You have to consciously reach under your mask to achieve skin to skin contact. You can easily scratch your face through your mask without touching your face. Touching your mask is not the same thing as touching your face.

I’m rather confused about this push back. Of course wearing a mask doesn’t guarantee you can’t get infected, but it’s better than not wearing one. There’s a bunch of evidence of this, in studies, and in China right now. What is there to worry about? If you’re really worried, then don’t go out.

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

#284

Post by dahart »

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.

It’s not likely to change in a week. U.S. hospitals are required by law to not use expired products.

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

#285

Post by asiachick »

robocat wrote: post #269
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 don't believe this one. Japanese might wear masks but not all of them wear masks and they are not N95 masks." This is a very western belief. Why do we continue to think that asians wearing masks are stupid? Most importantly, say masks prevent 50% of transmission, and the majority of transmission is via the air (highly plausible), then that would mean drastically less transmission. Even an N20 mask that reduces r…

I certainly didn't say asians wearing masks was stupid. My implication is they are not effective for either COVID-19 nor cold or Flu viruses. Japanese don't wear N20 masks. They basically wear a piece of cloth that seals no where.

https://askul.c.yimg.jp/img/product/3L2/8475270_3L2.jpg

That is not a N20 mask.

Further they don't all wear them. The majority of people wearing masks in Japan are for hay fever.

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

#286

Post by dahart »

aaavl2821 wrote: post #223
deelowe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Agree & upvoted; this needs to be better understood. Especially noteworthy is the section you linked to is written for health-care workers, and they’re confirming that a homemade mask is better than nothing (while also recommending the homemade mask dead last.)

Unfortuately, the CDC really is giving out conflicting guidance here. For example, higher up in the section for lay-people is this: “You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/prevention... (In “How to Prepare | Protect Yourself”)

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

#287

Post by tathougies »

jayd16 wrote: post #184
tathougies wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

In both links the Trump administration tried to cut the funding but Congress funded it anyway. Can't say that instills confidence in health leadership. That said, calling the situation a hoax was beyond redemption.

Read the politifact. Trump said the accusations he hasn't responded are a hoax like the impeachment accusations. He never said covid was a hoax. Not sure why everyone keeps saying this. Its quite clear from his speech.

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

#288

Post by tathougies »

MiroF wrote: post #104
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

It should be seized and compensated with eminent domain. Buying implies right of refusal and no, I don't think that Target should be able to stockpile N95 masks in its warehouses.

Sure. Being compensated still means they were bought. Compelled to sell is fine as an emergency police power and is fine. Being seized is a violation of the amendment against involuntary seizure without due process of law.

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

#289

Post by tathougies »

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

Yes they have the power to compel a sale but the government has to pay. And the defense production act is not relevant to governors. Governors have sovereign executive power in their state including ordinary police power. The federal government does not ordinarily have that power which is why they need an act of congress.

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

#290

Post by tathougies »

takeda wrote: post #195
ceejayoz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It is available to be invoked but it is better that we dont have to use it to compel manufacturers and can instead ask nicely. Currently all manufacturers are basically complying without compulsion.
Post reply on HN