Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 415 posts

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#401

Post by no-s »

jayspell wrote: post #352
MagnumOpus wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slight difference is that this disease is fifty times more deadly than the HK flu. Just about everyone in the US got that one and about 50,000 people died. We are at 5 times that level already and only 10% of the population has been exposed. (Also the value placed on old people’s lives has increased drastically... you might not like it but it is social consensus to spend millions to extend the lives of 75-year-olds b…

Where do you see it as being fifty times more deadly? Wikipedia lists Hong Kong flu deaths in US as upwards of 100,000 with 100m less people in the country. Even at fifty times more deadly it is not greatest cause of death this year. Heart disease and cancer have killed far more (over a million collectively). The response is way out of proportion to what we have seen. I believe the initial response was appropriate gi…

>> This continued fearful response is preposterous.

Careful pal. The Emperor's new suit is made of the finest hypothesis.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#402

Post by no-s »

timr wrote: post #388
3JPLW wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about protecting you, though. It's also about protecting our limited healthcare resources. Every year I get the flu shot to protect me, you, and our shared healthcare.

It's the same argument, and shifting the objective to "healthcare resources" doesn't make it any more responsive than before. I (like many people) am at ~zero risk of serious disease, so we're back to the same transitive logic: apparently my catching a virus is morally equivalent to overloading the healthcare system, because I might give it to someone who is at risk. Well, likewise: you risk putting someone else in t…

>>After all, masks and social distancing work, right?

funny how critical examination of that premise is not allowed.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#403

Post by no-s »

maxerickson wrote: post #143
drcross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing personal choice should sound alarm bells for anyone who has read Brave New World, 1984 or the Gulag Archipelago. If you permit me to stereotype the HN demographic here- you are probably reading this comment from the comfort of a warm apartment with running water and you're probably not hungry. Removing personal choice is an extremely dangerous idea where those reliable things that you take for granted start…

What I don't understand is why people don't make better personal choices? It's very strange that people won't just wear a mask (with it over their mouth and nose). There might be some tiny fraction of people that have a real issue with it, but not anywhere the number of people that feel the need to loudly object to it.

>> There might be some tiny fraction of people that have a real issue with it, but not anywhere the number of people that feel the need to loudly object to it.

Let's not forget the cadre of objectors who want us to wear a mask to protect their peace of mind, explicitly stating this goal as needful. Or those who vociferously demean anyone who objects for personal reasons (e.g. I tear up and start sneezing if I wear a typical cloth mask or sterile surgical mask for more than a few minutes, and have a sinus headache for several hours subsequent; I'm not the only one in this class).

Can you cite the transmission rate for asymptomatic carriers? The false positives for the various tests? The critical aspects of the efficacy of masking?

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#404

Post by maxerickson »

no-s wrote: post #403
maxerickson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is why people don't make better personal choices? It's very strange that people won't just wear a mask (with it over their mouth and nose). There might be some tiny fraction of people that have a real issue with it, but not anywhere the number of people that feel the need to loudly object to it.

>> There might be some tiny fraction of people that have a real issue with it, but not anywhere the number of people that feel the need to loudly object to it. Let's not forget the cadre of objectors who want us to wear a mask to protect their peace of mind, explicitly stating this goal as needful. Or those who vociferously demean anyone who objects for personal reasons (e.g. I tear up and start sneezing if I wear a…

Masks reduce droplets and aerosols, by multiple obvious mechanisms. That reduces transmission from infectious people. And even cloth masks seem to have some protective effect.

The easiest way to get infectious people to wear masks is to have everybody do it in high contact situations, there's no need to be fancy about who wears mask during a raging pandemic, so your other two questions don't really need answering.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#405

Post by otterley »

no-s wrote: post #402
timr wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same argument, and shifting the objective to "healthcare resources" doesn't make it any more responsive than before. I (like many people) am at ~zero risk of serious disease, so we're back to the same transitive logic: apparently my catching a virus is morally equivalent to overloading the healthcare system, because I might give it to someone who is at risk. Well, likewise: you risk putting someone else in t…

>>After all, masks and social distancing work, right? funny how critical examination of that premise is not allowed.

Of course it's allowed. But you should come armed with epidemiological data that contradicts the evidence and studies already out there. That's the language that epidemiologists speak. And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence.

Merely questioning it without a plausible explanation that is consistent with the existing data is a distraction. Why should anyone listen to you if that's all you've got?

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#406

Post by snakeboy »

jjulius wrote: post #173
snakeboy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't your parents presumably be at much higher risk than you? It seems like the roles should be reversed, no?

Great question! Looking at it strictly from an age perspective you're correct, but there are a lot of other factors that flip that around for us. My wife has a pre-existing condition and we've been taking sheltering-in-place pretty seriously since the Bay Area shut down in mid-March. We've both been working from home and have only ventured out for walks, to sit in corners of parks away from everyone, or to go to a do…

Okay, interesting - good luck! (I guess it would have been reasonable for me to have assumed you two have a particular situation and I could've avoided my snarky question :) )

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#407

Post by jjulius »

snakeboy wrote: post #406
jjulius wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great question! Looking at it strictly from an age perspective you're correct, but there are a lot of other factors that flip that around for us. My wife has a pre-existing condition and we've been taking sheltering-in-place pretty seriously since the Bay Area shut down in mid-March. We've both been working from home and have only ventured out for walks, to sit in corners of parks away from everyone, or to go to a do…

Okay, interesting - good luck! (I guess it would have been reasonable for me to have assumed you two have a particular situation and I could've avoided my snarky question :) )

Hah, FWIW, I didn't interpret it as snark or anything negative. :)

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#408

Post by curlypaul924 »

atty wrote: post #20

What are HNers planning to do for the holidays? We’re seriously considering not seeing anyone, not even parents, even though my SO has had COVID already (she works at a hospital and contracted it from COVID patients). Stories like this are the main reason. Even if no one at the party gets very ill, the chance of further spreading it to others seriously scares me.

Since incubation period is 2-14 days (with a median of 5 days), we have requested that family members attending for Thanksgiving refrain from other social gatherings for 14 days prior. While this does not eliminate risk, it should reduce it to within a margin we are comfortable with.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#409

Post by flubert »

rwiggum wrote: post #390
flubert wrote: post #334

Is anyone in the U.S. using thermal cameras to spot individuals with a fever? I live in a smaller city, not really close to a big metropolitan area, but I haven't seen a thermal camera in use yet. I see they are available on Amazon, so it doesn't seem like it is an issue of availability. Are these being used by businesses in other areas of the U.S.? Seems like it would be a no-brainer to use these to non-invasivly sc…

It doesn't work. Not everyone has symptoms.

Any data available that quantifies that effect of asymptomatic transmission? Are they the main driver of new infections or a minor player?

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#410

Post by m0llusk »

greggman3 wrote: post #384
m0llusk wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Japanese effort to contain the virus correctly guessed that since the virus spreads quickly the best approach is to identify and contain clusters. This has made it possible to target their testing and tracking in a way that is highly effective. The not wearing shoes inside really needs to be called out as bunk on two levels. First of all, coronavirus is extremely weak and does not live at all outside of droplets.…

that doesn't match my experience at all. I've been in few houses/apartments in Japan with disgusting floors. I've been in plenty in the USA. You can see cleaning floors in Japan is part of the culture as it feature heavily in anime about real like since everyone shares in it as a well known cultural activity. Carpet is also unusual in Japan. Tatami are not uncommon but they are easy to clean where as carpet is not.

My remark was not about floors in Japan. In Japan there are tatami mats and a cultural habit of putting away items not in use which is very different from the US where beds are often left out and unmade.

In the US carpet is not only common but is often required for noise reduction. In this environment not wearing shoes is not enough to keep floors clean and it is common for people who do not wear shoes in the house to have filthy floors that take extra effort to clean.

I have cleaned around ten thousand homes during my career as a cleaner. How many homes have you attended?

Post reply on HN