Hacker News Reader

That study was measuring masks ability to prevent being infected with the virus, not spreading it, so not directly applicable to parent's claim

I agree but the issue is no such study exists. Which is why I told them straight-up that their claim is not in good faith. Masks have never been shown to stop community transmission of respiratory viruses.

In fact if we back up for a bit and look at the immunology and population dynamics involved it's not even clear that we should want to slow the spread of SARS-2 or other respiratory viruses in the general population. We literally did a "stop, drop, and roll" of almost the entire global economy, got vaccines out in record time, and what do you know, SARS-2 is still ripping through the population just like it was always destined to.

We're fighting against quicksand.

We are fighting against quicksand, but virtually anything that slows transmission makes it easier to stay afloat. And letting it run its course is going to kill a lot of people, and the measures that were put in place almost certainly saved a lot of lives. I personally think that anything that might reasonably be used to slow transmission should be used, if for no other reason that to make sure that hospitals can keep up, and that vaccination rates can reach a point where new variants are a minor annoyance rather than a massive health crisis.

Masks haven't been shown to reduce transmission, they have abundant deleterious effects upon wearing them, and they could even worsen transmission by increasing the net release of aerosols (due to the larger net volume of air moved as a result of the user inhaling air that has relatively more CO2 and therefore relatively less O2 than a normal breath; that's without accounting for the possibility that masks actually nebulize what would have been respiratory droplets into fine aerosols as the plosive force forces the droplets through the mask fiber mesh)

So even if you don't accept that we shouldn't try to fight the inevitable (which you should accept, but I don't feel like going back and forth about it), recommending mask mandates as an intervention is a foolish strategy. They've never been shown to work in an RCT and they certainly haven't worked in real-world community settings.

> And letting it run its course is going to kill a lot of people

I think you missed the point. It's running its course either way. We had insanely high mask compliance in america, even in red states, we've had on-and-off lockdowns for a year in blue areas, we've had widespread vaccination, and it's still spreading to and from vaccinated people no problem.

Furthermore you seem to not understand that different members of the population are at different risk levels. For example, people in their 20s can acquire the SARS-2 infection, beat it off, and have robust, enduring natural immunity, which will prevent them from subsequent infection and especially from transmitting it. Vaccination alone does not achieve that result. Thus why you're fighting against quicksand.

>considering that there has only ever been one RCT done on SARS-2, and it showed no significant difference for its primary endpoint (self-infection). It didn't measure community spread, presumably because actually measuring that is extremely difficult, which is exactly why no study exists to confirm your statement.

This argument only makes sense if you think it also makes sense to disregard all non-RCT evidence for transmissibility, such as the number and momentum of droplets expelled. As the joke goes, there are no randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of parachutes in falls from airplanes.

I'm happy to get into the philosophy of this, but you should know that mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless. I can show you how to kill cancer cells in a petri dish. I can't show you how to cure cancer. They're very different beasts.

BTW I noticed you mentioned "number and momentum of droplets", which seems to suggest you're still stuck in the old respiratory droplet transmission model and aren't aware of the overwhelming evidence that SARS-2 is transmitted primarily via aerosols, which even mechanistically masks can't do anything against?

>mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless.

This is of course not true. You also neglect other forms of evidence, like natural experiments:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877582/

Demanding RCTs or bust is basically poisoning the well. And for all your "happiness" your posts have no shortage of vitriol.

Aerosols are composed of droplets which can be caught in masks, also:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28144885

> Aerosols are composed of droplets

This is backwards. Aerosols are smaller than droplets. You can’t be composed of something bigger than yourself.

Aerosol essentially means it doesn’t fall to the ground like a saliva droplet does.

—

The “natural experiment” you linked is a great example of why RCTs are so important (particularly for anything you’re proposing mandating). Saying “after masking was adopted cases went down” isn’t proof because if you look at the non-mask areas, cases also went down during the period.

—

I’m on mobile so can’t dig up the quote but I’d really recommend reading Medical Nihilism by Stegenga. You seem to have a backwards view of evidentiary standards. That is to say, most findings are false (Ionnidis has a famous paper on this too). That’s why RCTs and the like are so incredibly important.

> It is completely infeasible to eradicate a highly infectious zoonotic respiratory virus w/ abundant animal reservoirs.

We know SARS-CoV-2 is abundant in humans, and we know it's related to viruses with abundant animal reservoirs, but do we know that SARS-CoV-2 has abundant animal reservoirs? I wasn't aware that it did, and I wouldn't expect it to have.

And… what kind of a defeatist attitude is that? They said it was completely infeasible to eradicate smallpox, but we did – because the people actually eradicating smallpox knew how to do it.

> You cannot possibly honestly make this statement in good faith,

Citation needed. You've selected an apparently arbitrary standard for evidence, concluded that nothing you're aware of meets it, and therefore that nobody can possibly make a certain claim… but I note you're certainly not as stringent in your requirements for claiming the opposite.

> We know SARS-CoV-2 is abundant in humans, and we know it's related to viruses with abundant animal reservoirs, but do we know that SARS-CoV-2 has abundant animal reservoirs? I wasn't aware that it did, and I wouldn't expect it to have.

Yes, it has abundant animal reservoirs. The fact you're not aware of this suggests that you are lacking some essential background info, which would explain why you are so myopically characterizing my attitude as "defeatist" rather than "obviously true".

Here's just one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/

> There is intriguing evidence that farmed mink infections (acquired from humans) have led to infection of other farm workers in turn, with a recent outbreak of a mink variant in humans in Denmark

Now on to the "defeatist" point:

> They said it was completely infeasible to eradicate smallpox, but we did – because the people actually eradicating smallpox knew how to do it.

Smallpox had no known animal or reservoirs. Compared to the SARS-2 vaccines, smallpox vaccines at the time of eradication were far more effective.

Again, you clearly lack the most rudimentary understanding of this topic. I'm not saying that as an attack but rather as a statement of fact. I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia page on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...

> The targeting of infectious diseases for eradication is based on narrow criteria, as both biological and technical features determine whether a pathogenic organism is (at least potentially) eradicable. The targeted pathogen must not have a significant non-human (or non-human-dependent) reservoir (or, in the case of animal diseases, the infection reservoir must be an easily identifiable species, as in the case of rinderpest). This requires sufficient understanding of the life cycle and transmission of the pathogen. An efficient and practical intervention (such as a vaccine or antibiotic) must be available to interrupt transmission.

Reading even just the intro paragraphs of that article should make it abundantly clear why SARS-2 cannot and will not be eradicated.

Oh, and BTW, even if we did eradicate it, which we can't, it would still exist in the bioweapon labs of every major country in the world. All it would take is one bad actor intentionally releasing it, or alternatively an accidental lab leak (which has happened with SARS-1, and SARS-2 is even easier to leak). Again, you simply haven't thought this through.

> Here's just one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002747/

That's “non-zero”; not the same thing as abundant. How do you even know R>1? I'd say “found in wild animals” is the standard for “abundant animal reservoirs”; that's “some animals can catch it from humans” which we already know.

> Smallpox had no known animal or reservoirs.

Smallpox had cases in practically undocumented people. The last few smallpox infections were stamped out by pre-emptive vaccinations of everyone found in the vicinity; that doesn't require the subjects to be human in principle, even if they were in this case.

I maintain we could do it.

> Oh, and BTW, even if we did eradicate it, which we can't, it would still exist in the bioweapon labs of every major country in the world.

Fully-general argument for never bothering to eradicate any disease! Congratulations; I literally cannot rebut this point. All disease eradication is pointless. (By the way, Earth's only got another ~2 billion years of habitability left. Let's just roll over and die now.)

> That's “non-zero”; not the same thing as abundant. How do you even know R>1? I'd say “found in wild animals” is the standard for “abundant animal reservoirs”; that's “some animals can catch it from humans” which we already know.

I literally linked you a study that alleged that the virus jumped back from minks to humans. There's far more studies on the animal reservoirs, I just don't feel like doing an exhaustive literature review for the purposes of this subthread. I would strongly encourage you to start researching it since you apparently don't seem to be aware of the fact that zoos around the country are vaccinating their animals against COVID, etc. (Which BTW I disagree with but unless you want to argue that they're just vaccinating them for no reason surely that implies that they're getting infected)

There's literally mountains of evidence for you to go look at

> Smallpox had cases in practically undocumented people. The last few smallpox infections were stamped out by pre-emptive vaccinations of everyone found in the vicinity; that doesn't require the subjects to be human in principle, even if they were in this case.

Okay, good luck vaccinating not just the entire global human population but also virtually every mammal out there. Good luck chasing down the smaller rodents. Better not miss a single spot!

> I maintain we could do it.

Again, we can't. We can't even get close with our current capabilities. I agree there's a hypothetical universe where with teleportation and an infection-blocking vaccine - neither of which we have - as well as some sort of all-seeing eye, we could do it.

> I literally linked you a study that alleged that the virus jumped back from minks to humans.

I understand that. But unless each infected mink infects (on average) more than one healthy mink, mink populations are not reservoirs. (You don't need much animal-to-human transmission for it to count as a reservoir, so that's an almost irrelevant point and I don't know why you're focusing on it.)

> Good luck chasing down the smaller rodents. Better not miss a single spot!

They didn't eradicate smallpox by vaccinating every human. I'd encourage you to look it up… maybe start at that Wikipedia page you linked me?

How about you explain to me your proposal for SARS-2 eradication, and then I’ll explain why it’s unrealistic?

Why do you think I'd be any better at it than you? I'm saying it's within others' capabilities, but I'm not vain enough to believe it's within my own (without some training, at the least).

> You are actively spreading disinformation. SARS-2 ("covid") will never be extinct.

Sigh. THIS seems to be a deliberate misreading too.

Stopping the pandemic doesn't require eradicating the disease. Malaria remains endemic and largely unvaccinated, but controlled.

And cloth masks are a vitally important tool in making that happen. Claiming otherwise by arguing against a strawman is... yeah, disinformation.

OH MY GOD. After a year and a half, why won't you people just wear your masks?! Why!?

Do you think wearing the same mask every single day and being able to take it off when the waiter brings the breadsticks is an effective mask policy?

Would you go into surgery with a physician who wears the same mask on a daily basis?

> Do you think wearing the same mask every single day and being able to take it off when the waiter brings the breadsticks is an effective mask policy?

More so than not wearing a mask at all, yes. Are you arguing for more effective mask distribution and more stringent mask enforcement? I think I'd agree that is warranted at the moment. But you're not, you're just whatabouting.

Would love a citation for that.

Texas lifted all restrictions including masks and has lower infection rates per capita than most places with mask mandates and Covid restrictions.

So the statement you make with arrogance may actually be wrong misinformation.

> Would love a citation for that.

Are you living in a cave? How can you not have seen all this. UCSF has this amazing review, and it's right at the top of the google results page: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...

You are claiming not to have seen this not because you have looked for this evidence and failed to find it, but because you have been CONVINCED BY YOUR MEDIA that this evidence doesn't exist.

You also cite lies. Texas is one of the worst areas in the country for both total infection count and current infection rate: https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states...

> So the statement you make with arrogance may actually be wrong misinformation.

Ditto.

> Stopping the pandemic doesn't require eradicating the disease. Malaria remains endemic and largely unvaccinated, but controlled.

I'm literally responding to a comment from somebody who is advocating for eradication. That's why I pointed out that eradication is not feasible. I am well aware of the whole mitigation vs containment vs eradication distinction, and I maintain, personally, that focused protection is and was always the correct strategy to follow.

> I'm literally responding to a comment from somebody who is advocating for eradication.

No, you're not. Go read the comment again.

> Rand Paul needs to have a permanent muzzle installed until covid is extinct.

Again, they literally said eradication (extinction) was possible. I said it wasn’t. I didn’t misread at all.

I know precisely what I am talking about, everything I said echoes the best public health guidance we have thus far, and I did not "callously disregard" anything. I have carefully considered the issue of whether YouTube should have the right to muzzle Rand Paul's idiocy, weighed the pros and cons, and I have decided that they should.

I'll thank you to keep your sloppy, inaccurate, careless personal attacks to yourself.

> You are actively spreading disinformation. SARS-2 ("covid") will never be extinct. It is completely infeasible to eradicate a highly infectious zoonotic respiratory virus w/ abundant animal reservoirs.

misinformation. Parent poster did not state covid will be extinct, they said, until it is extinct. If that is in fact never, Rand's words not being amplified around the globe for 24/7 access is still advisable.