Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbro | Hacker News Reader

The public generally has mask effectiveness confused (possibly deliberately so, to incentivize).

Masks aren't to protect you from other people.

They're to protect other people from you.

In that sense, yes, even a non-filtering surgical mask is extremely helpful. It helps keep your asymptomatic, virus-laden exhalations, coughs, and sneezes from overly contaminating your local environment.

And that, multiplied by everyone, does make a difference.

The most effective, practical response would seem to be distributing surgical masks, mandating everyone wear them in public, and restricting N95+ for health care professionals working in close proximity to infected persons.

View on HN

> The most effective, practical response would seem to be distributing surgical masks, mandating everyone wear them in public, and restricting N95+ for health care professionals working in close proximity to infected persons.

I totally agree and it seems what China is doing to contain the spread of the virus.

If you're leaving your house, or entering a public building, your temperature is measured and you have to wear a mask.

This does not apply to N95+ masks with exhalation valves, which is most of them.

With this disease there is little evidence that asymptomatic people are capable of spreading the disease, and if they are symptomatic they shouldn't be going in public anyway, let alone donning a mask and doing so.

Edit: Please see additional context in reply below.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001468

Which was subsequently corrected: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomati...

Per that, the correct terminology appears to be nonspecific rather than asymptomatic.

E.g. "According to people familiar with the call, [the index patient] felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication."

"“If I was writing this today, I would phrase that differently,” he added.

from Michael Hoelscher, one of the doctors who submitted the errant document. Sweden's Public Health Authority was not too pleased, either.

Most alarming, "Scientists spreading erroneous information about coronavirus have been taken to task around the world, including a researcher with ties to Harvard University in the US who tweeted that the spread of the disease was "thermonuclear pandemic level bad."

I don't have/use Twitter/FB for a good reason, I think it's more virulent than coronavirus.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-flawed-coronavirus-study-sprea...

That's selective quoting from your article. If we're talking about accuracy in reporting, then be objective.

The gist boiled down to (1) the patient in the documented case was not asymptomatic, (2) the symptoms they experienced were pretty mild re: anything that would indicate non-standard flu, (3) it's an unanswered question as to whether asymptomatic transmission is possible.

The answer to (3) from same article being: possibly, but likely only in rare cases and not as the dominant transmission path.

>Masks aren't to protect you from other people. They're to protect other people from you.

This is pure BS, unless you suggest every doctor is already infected.

Basically yes. You assume that every doctor may be infected with something. When a doctor is treating a patient, they wear a mask to reduce the risk of disease spreading from the doctor to the patient. It is the same reasoning for why they wear gloves when doing things like operations -- so as not to infect the patient.

Sure, and off shift they take off masks and use public transport going back to their families. Perfect logic.

They take their gloves off too.

Surely you don't suggest the gloves are for protecting the doctor's hands?

Actually, they protect both parties - the doctor from blood (or other fluid) born pathogens, and the patient from anything on the doctor's skin.

Your point is well taken though, I just wanted to clarify for any future readers since misconceptions about PPE seem to abound.

The other passengers on public transit (presumably) don’t have their abdominal cavities opened up 12 inches in front of the doctor’s face.

Public spaces are not assumed to be sterile, so the normal precautions still apply.

Indeed, the veritable microcosm of non-human life all of us carry around on and inside of us. Also different levels of susceptibility.

Breaching the skin alone (aka surgery) introduces risks most of us don't have to worry about in our daily lives.

And that's to say nothing of immunocompromised patients (e.g. cancer or transplant).

What's a happy, harmless staph colony on my skin can be very serious for someone else.

Just to clarify, it's slightly more complicated than this.

Surgical masks (note the name) protect _others_ from you. (They are unlikely to do much to protect you from others, but I suppose it might be possible under fairly limited circumstances.)

N95 and other test fit respirators protect _you_ from the environment in general. (I suppose they would also protect others from you, but that's really not their point.)

Gloves protect both parties from each other.

When working with highly contagious patients, medical providers wear additional PPE as well (face shields, goggles, suits, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com