Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 • Hacker News Board

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#51

Post by newacct583 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #40

The problem is the scientific community did not immediately denounce those scientists that clearly were putting policy before science. It wasn't just the masks saga. Anyone with basic comprehension of physics and particle data can see how and why masks work, so Don't try to fool the public by lying and don't sit by when some colleagues are basically destroying the whole of the scientific community's credibility just…

> The problem is the scientific community did not immediately denounce those scientists that clearly were putting policy before science.

Who said this though? This seems like a caricature. All I remember is a bunch of confusing messaging from the WHO and a bunch of tut-tutting from experts warning people not to hoard or stockpile PPE that was needed more pressingly by health care workers.

Can you be specific about who said what, and when, that "destroyed the whole of the scientific community's credibility"? I just don't see it. In my world by late march everyone was wearing homespun masks form Etsy...

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#52

Post by coolgeek » Thu, May 28, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

votepaunchy wrote: post #49

rumanator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently? OP's point is about if children transmit the virus. Either they do or don't. But your question is about the efficiency of how children transmit the virus. It's an entirely different question although your personal choice of weasel words makes it look differently. It makes no sense to waste time talking about efficiency if you're talking…

By that measure masks do not work since N95 allows a certain level of particles to transit. Perfection is not necessary, only reducing the replication factor.

Fair point.

Please now explain how reopening the schools will reduce the replication factor.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#53

Post by lutorm » Thu, May 28, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #40

The problem is the scientific community did not immediately denounce those scientists that clearly were putting policy before science. It wasn't just the masks saga. Anyone with basic comprehension of physics and particle data can see how and why masks work, so Don't try to fool the public by lying and don't sit by when some colleagues are basically destroying the whole of the scientific community's credibility just…

Science is science and policy is policy. In the end, if you want science to be useful, you have to recommend a policy, and scientists can do that, too. You just have to be clear on what is scientific results and what is policy recommendations based on said results.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#54

Post by lutorm » Thu, May 28, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

IvyMike wrote: post #30

newacct583 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one at the CDC (at least no career bureaucrat) ever denied masks were effective, though. It's true that there was concern early on that a public run on masks would put health care workers in jeopardy, so people were absolutely told not to try to procure them. And it's also true that the WHO's messaging on this subject was terribly confusing. But the idea that "Hah! The elites were WRONG about masks!" is just... we…

> No one at the CDC (at least no career bureaucrat) ever denied masks were effective, though. Not the CDC, but the U.S. surgeon general, Feb 29th: "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus" https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/12337257852839321... Once more data came in proving the effectiveness of masks, he acknowledged in a later tweet…

"They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"

This statement (my emphasis) is, as far as I know, still correct, because masks are only effective if fitted properly and people are trained to use them correctly (like absolutely no touching of the mask.)

What's changed (at least in the US) is that early on the focus was on people hoarding surgical masks because they thought it would prevent them from getting infected, in the presence of a widespread shortage.

Lately, the focus has been on the benefit of mask use as a means of reducing transmission of the virus, where the evidence points to mask use being uniformly beneficial and the concerns about mask touching etc don't apply since the assumption is that you may already be infected.

This is also what the "mask protesters" don't seem to understand (or ignore.) They talk about wearing a mask or not as a personal risk decision, when it's actually about whether you expose others to the virus.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#55

Post by lutorm » Thu, May 28, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

0d9eooo wrote: post #50

timmytokyo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the primary motivation for wearing masks is to protect yourself from others. It's to protect others from you. That's why there's shame involved in not wearing one; if you don't wear it, you're advertising that you don't care about the health of people around you. That's truly sinister. Unfortunately, something as innocuous as mask wearing has been politicized in the US by certain unsavory political and…

Unfortunately, I sympathize with the anti-mask requirement sentiment, even though I wear one in indoor public spaces like grocers. I don't think people should be shamed or that they should be mandated. When I read into it it's not always clear masks work well to limit egress of virus, and I do think the scientific community is to blame to some extent for presenting things as "masks are scientific and lack of masks is…

* I think if the scientific community were being honest, they'd say they don't work great, but it's something, and every bit can count.

Funny, because that's exactly my impression of what they are saying.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#56

Post by marcell » Thu, May 28, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #41

marcell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC latest best estimate is 0.4% death rate from Covid. This compares to a death rate from the flu of around 0.2%, also based on CDC estimates [1]. Every death is a tragedy, but we didn't do half-lockdowns for the flu before. Why are we doing a full lockdown for something that is 2x the flu. Antibody testing largely supports a 0.4% death rates conclusion, I've tracked this data in a spreadsheet I made [2]. 0.4% i…

Thank you for putting that together. Is there a git repo for covid-19.direct or similar?

Yep, the repo is at https://github.com/xunhuang/covid-19 . I didn’t write it, but the maintainer is fairly responsive to pull requests and issues.

Re: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

#57

Post by rumanator » Thu, May 28, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

votepaunchy wrote: post #49

rumanator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your evidence that children actually do transmit the virus efficiently? OP's point is about if children transmit the virus. Either they do or don't. But your question is about the efficiency of how children transmit the virus. It's an entirely different question although your personal choice of weasel words makes it look differently. It makes no sense to waste time talking about efficiency if you're talking…

By that measure masks do not work since N95 allows a certain level of particles to transit. Perfection is not necessary, only reducing the replication factor.

> By that measure masks do not work

That's a stupid remark. N95 are used mainly to reduce the emission of our own droplets, not to eliminate it nor to make us invulnerable.

Still, the recommended approach is still to stay at home and avoid contact altogether. As it's obvious to anyone, no exposure is far better than some exposure.