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

291–300 of 309 posts

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

#291

Post by robocat »

asiachick wrote: post #285
robocat wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

If everyone wears masks that reduce droplet exhalation, that helps, even if a mask didn’t help prevent inhalation of droplets. I chose the words “droplet transmission” carefully.

> less than 50% wear them.

I looked a photo taken in Japan today - certainly looks like more than 50% to me - but hard to get facts on and I only looked at the first photo I could find.

> The majority of people wearing masks in Japan are for hay fever.

I.e. the mask is worn to reduce inhalation of small particles: surely you are contradicting yourself (you say they “seal nowhere” you are implying that they have no effect and that anyone using one for hayfever is mistaken).

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

#292

Post by JamesBarney »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #229
JamesBarney wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think the lack of pandemics on the scale of the coronavirus/spanish flu for the last 100 years has been a lack of connectivity. The coronavirus would have played out the same in the 40s as today, except it probably would have been worse in the 1940's. The reasons we haven't had one in 100 years is we haven't had the right virus.

Now will we have another in the next 100 years? I don't think anyone knows what the base rate for 1918/coronavirus style viruses are, but there is no reason to think it will happen more frequently than the last 100.

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

#293

Post by mygo »

true_religion wrote: post #272
susanhi wrote: post #150

We have 330 million people in US. China has ramped their mask production to 200 million masks a day. Had US government had the foresight and common sense to contract mask manufacturers to even produce half of what China is producing - let’s say 100 million masks, we could have had enough for everyone to have a mask in 3-4 days. Universal masks for everyone (not only health care workers) together with hygiene protocol…

The problem is that the majority of masks manufactures are in China because that’s where the population regularly wears them for the simple flu. Understandably the Chinese government would be unwilling to contract their strategic supply of manufacturing out when they need it for themselves.

China offered us lower prices, and the lower prices were great. But right now China isn’t selling us those low priced masks. And we do not need China to produce masks.

We know from basic economic theory that there are manufacturers who would either ramp up production or go into production if the demand increased. With China seemingly out of the US mask business for who knows how long there are also fewer available suppliers — another motivator.

Domestic manufacturers should be happy to take our money — it’s simply a matter of timing. We knew of the mask shortage at least by January. I know this, because I was following the news around then, and went to the local stores and saw with my own eyes that they were out of stock. I could only get them at Home Depot. Not Walgreens, not Target, not Wal Mart. Had we been contracting manufacturers to produce masks starting then, we wouldn’t be experiencing as many shortages as we are today, assuming it doesn’t take 2 months for pre-existing manufacturers to ramp up production.

The botched timing in ramping up domestic production in response to a known shortage is the biggest issue, not the fact that China hasn’t been taking new orders for going on 3 months.

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

#294

Post by shalmanese »

susanhi wrote: post #150

We have 330 million people in US. China has ramped their mask production to 200 million masks a day. Had US government had the foresight and common sense to contract mask manufacturers to even produce half of what China is producing - let’s say 100 million masks, we could have had enough for everyone to have a mask in 3-4 days. Universal masks for everyone (not only health care workers) together with hygiene protocol…

"In an interview, Bowen said he could make 1 million masks a day if he ran his machines around the clock, a huge quantity for his firm but an amount that would barely make a dent in global demand. He’s hesitant, however, to ramp up production at the facility outside Fort Worth, scarred by the boom-bust mess that occurred after the swine flu pandemic in 2009."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/15/coronavir...

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

#295

Post by IggleSniggle »

wool_gather wrote: post #149
IggleSniggle wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite possible that people think you are wearing a mask because they think YOU are sick, as that is the mask's primary effect (preventing you from spreading your disease to others)

The primary purpose of a filtering mask [is to protect the wearer][0]. They coincidentally protect the environment, too, [unless of course they have a built-in check valve][1] that passes unfiltered air out of the mask. [0]: https://ohsonline.com/articles/2014/05/01/comparison-respira... [1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008MCV1HY/ref=as_li_tl?ie...

Your first citation calls out a difference between "masks" (which protect the environment) and "respirators" (which protect the western and environment) and are the N95 discussed on this thread. Thanks for helping to clarify the differences.

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

#296

Post by aaavl2821 »

dahart wrote: post #286
aaavl2821 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see a contradiction. The CDC is trying to maximize public health benefit. They recommend stronger protection for people with more exposure to higher levels of the virus. Coincidentally, the people with higher levels of exposure also happen to be health care workers, who need the best available protection to save lives

If you are not exposed to high levels and are not required to put yourself at risk to care for patients, you are at low risk. You can protect yourself with milder measures like social distancing and face protection that is not as effective but not in such short supply

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

#297

Post by dahart »

aaavl2821 wrote: post #296
dahart wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see a contradiction. The CDC is trying to maximize public health benefit. They recommend stronger protection for people with more exposure to higher levels of the virus. Coincidentally, the people with higher levels of exposure also happen to be health care workers, who need the best available protection to save lives If you are not exposed to high levels and are not required to put yourself at risk to care f…

Maybe I misread your intent. I thought you were mostly pointing out the section titled “When No Facemasks Are Available, Options Include”, which would mean we’re talking about something that is not in short supply. I thought you were pointing out that, among other things, the CDC is saying that home-made masks are better than nothing, even for health care professionals, and even if it’s a last resort.

I mean I agree, of course, that they’re trying to maximize public health benefit, I just don’t think the guidance is at all clear to the public. The idea that anything less than N95 is useless is pervasive, you can see it right here on HN. My parents and co-workers believe it because it’s been reported in the mass media in the last weeks: “the CDC said masks don’t protect you!”.

For people who need to work or shop in public places, any kind of masks at all might well be statistically significant alternatives for people who are unable to practice social distancing. China seems to be doing it effectively right now; people are required to wear masks to go to work. They’re not telling the public to avoid masks because doctors need them, they’re telling the public not to leave the house and not to enter a work building without something over your face. It seems like the CDC is saying the opposite, you should not wear a mask unless you’re a doctor. If a bandana is even 50% or 30% or even 5% effective, and they want to maximize public health benefit, why aren’t they recommending people start with what they have at home for times when public exposure is necessary? Seems like that would both increase public health and deflect demand for surgical masks & N95 masks at the same time, no?

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

#298

Post by jayd16 »

tathougies wrote: post #287
jayd16 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the same speech he compared the projected fatalities to that of the common flu and said the press was in "hysteria mode." The message was very clearly from Trump. There's nothing to worry about.

He downplayed the threat and called the alarm bells a political hoax. That is the same thing as calling the threat a hoax even if he never denied the existence of the virus. A week later it was a national emergency.

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

#299

Post by capableweb »

js2 wrote: post #252
capableweb wrote: post #8

> As the coronavirus epidemic spread around the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided restrictive guidance on who should be tested, archived pages on its website show. While agencies in other countries were advising and conducting widespread testing, the CDC, charged with setting the U.S. standard for who should be tested for the virus, kept its criteria limited Well, "other countries" also d…

The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. We should hold ourselves to that standard. "Other countries" such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were conducting widespread testing while the U.S. was and still is not. More importantly, the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership as it did for the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

> The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader.

Yeah, we in the rest of the world is very aware of that and frankly a bit tired of it. But my grief about that is nowhere as big as South American or countries in the middle east.

> the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership

Realistically, I don't don't think the US would be able to provide global leadership. Your leaders were denying that this outbreak was even real and the person responsible for the containment is a person who believes prayers can actually solve things. So I don't think anyone is expecting the US to have any real play on the world scene today.

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

#300

Post by js2 »

capableweb wrote: post #299
js2 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. We should hold ourselves to that standard. "Other countries" such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were conducting widespread testing while the U.S. was and still is not. More importantly, the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership as it did for the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

> The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. Yeah, we in the rest of the world is very aware of that and frankly a bit tired of it. But my grief about that is nowhere as big as South American or countries in the middle east. > the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership Realistically, I don't don't think the US would be able to provide global leadership. Your leaders were denying that this o…

When I wrote "could and should have provided global leadership," I was referring to an alternate reality where my country elected Hillary Clinton.
Post reply on HN