There are 136 comments.

1. Coolidge
   Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…

   @GumbyMark

   3:03 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   AlphaBravo (View Comment):

   Hoyacon (View Comment):

   AlphaBravo (View Comment):

   The virus is spread primarily by touching contaminated surfaces and then your own face. It is not airborne, which means you will not get it just because you are in the same room as someone else who has it, or walk past someone in a store who has it. If someone who has it sneezes or coughs, then saliva containing virus can become aerosolized and land on surfaces (including skin) some distance away.

   Please do not take this as strong pushback, because I admit my knowledge in this area has “gaps.” But this is a different take from much of what I’ve absorbed. Sure, you may not get the virus in an airborne manner, but is it not commonly accepted that much of the transmission is through the air? Is the wearing of facial protective equipment (e.g., masks) a total overreaction? How does it spread in nursing homes?

   From the WHO: Airborne transmission is different from droplet transmission as it refers to the presence of microbes within droplet nuclei, which are generally considered to be particles <5μm in diameter, can remain in the air for long periods of time and be transmitted to others over distances greater than 1 m.

   Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

   All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

   Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

    

    

   And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

   Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia.   In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

2. Inactive
   Hammer, The

   @RyanM

   3:23 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   AlphaBravo (View Comment):

    

   Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

   All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

   Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

    

    

   And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

   Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia. In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

   Yes, for sick people. That’s why you see masks at doctors’ offices. 

3. Member
   Saint Augustine

   @SaintAugustine

   3:26 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

   Saint Augustine (View Comment):

   Hong Kong partial shutdown: schools still closed, limitations on how many can be in a restaurant and how big public gatherings can be. People who can work but can’t work at home go to work on the MTR wearing a mask. You can still go to the mall.

   New coronavirus confirmed cases, last three days: 4, 5, 3.

   The Worldometers charts are promising.

   Children have strong immune systems.

   Most if not all have been asymptomatic.

   Why close down schools? We need children to build herd immunity for the rest of us

   I can’t be certain that’s not the right way.

   But in favor of closing down schools are the facts that while the kids are building up herd immunity they’ll be spreading the virus to lots of people at home.

   In HK, the grandparents are not unlikely to be in the same home as the kids–in extremely close quarters.

4. Member
   Saint Augustine

   @SaintAugustine

   3:29 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Well, it looks like most of are thinking unclearly, as usual.  You’re missing the central point:

   Donald Trump is President.

   Therefore, everything is awful, and we’re totally doomed because of coronavirus, and it’s all his fault.  Q. E. D.

5. Coolidge
   Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…

   @GumbyMark

   3:31 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   AlphaBravo (View Comment):

    

    

   Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

   All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

   Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

    

    

   And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

   Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia. In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

   Yes, for sick people. That’s why you see masks at doctors’ offices.

   No, both the original Bush administration guidance and the practice in East Asia during flu pandemics includes healthy people.

6. Inactive
   D.A. Venters

   @DAVenters

   3:36 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   AlphaBravo (View Comment):

   D.A. Venters (View Comment):

   I agree completely that people will do a lot of the social distancing on their own, without the gov. orders. I have made that argument myself.

    

   This is always the problem with analyzing strong government intervention. It’s very hard to prove that something wasn’t necessary, yet very easy to look back and say “it would have been much worse if he hadn’t done what we did”.

   Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

   Government always has every incentive to act boldly, and the healthcare system was caught with their pants down preparedness-wise, which means they had to try to get the public to do everything in their power to not need their services.

   Again, I don’t think anyone would argue that social distancing didn’t flatten the curve. In fact, I think it worked much better than was expected. But how necessary was it to put millions of people out of work and destroy thousands of businesses and add trillions to our already horrifying national debt? How many lives did we really save? And what about the unintended consequences? How many people will be badly hurt because of the economic blowback of all this?

   And keep in mind that “flattening the curve” did just that…..it flattened the curve, it didn’t reduce the area under the curve. Just as many people are going to get very sick and die than if we had done nothing, potentially even more over a longer period of time. Also keep in mind that a significant majority of the people using most of the healthcare resources and eventually dying are statistically likely to have died from other causes within a year or two anyway…..I know healthcare rationing is a taboo topic, but most people spend a large majority of all the healthcare dollars they spend in their entire life in the last year of their life, and considering the dismal state of healthcare economics in our country right now, that’s probably not something we can afford to keep ignoring.

   Respectfully, I think you’re trying to have it both ways, here. On one hand, you say the lockdown orders are unnecessary because people would voluntarily take steps to protect themselves anyway. But then you blame the lockdown orders put millions of people out of work, as if, without them, people would have just carried on as usual. 

7. Member
   Locke On

   @LockeOn

   3:43 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   AlphaBravo (View Comment):

    

    

   Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

   All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

   Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

    

    

   And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

   Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia. In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

   Yes, for sick people. That’s why you see masks at doctors’ offices.

   No, both the original Bush administration guidance and the practice in East Asia during flu pandemics includes healthy people.

   Keeping in mind that it appears that some of the nominally ‘healthy’ people in the current situation are asymptomatic carriers who can spread the virus by touch or droplet.

8. Inactive
   Spin

   @Spin

   3:46 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Hoyacon (View Comment):
   These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.

   Gross.  Spit somewhere else.  ha ha!

9. Member
   Locke On

   @LockeOn

   3:48 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

   Rodin (View Comment):

   Rodin (View Comment):

   Locke On (View Comment):

   MarciN (View Comment):

   I think population density will turn out to be a noticeable factor in the transmission of this disease.

   Rounding off:

   New York City: 27,000 per square mile

   Los Angeles: 7,500 per square mile

   Stockholm: 4,800 people per square mile

   Wuhan: 3,200 people per square mile

   Lombardy: 1,100 people per square mile

   Boston: 14,000 people per square mile

   Washington, DC: 11,500 people per square mile

   Those numbers do not capture the much higher daytime population densities.

   I think the after-event analysis and reports will find that viruses spread in crowded spaces with poor ventilation at virus-specific temperatures and humidities.

   I think New York City will survive, but it will have to adopt far more stringent disinfection protocols for buildings and outdoor areas.

   That might be a testable theory, if we can find the right data. Have any of those following the numbers @Rodin @JerryGiordano seen case or death breakdowns by US SMSA out there? (Standard metropolitan statistical area). No way to eliminate the reporting inconsistencies, but a large enough sample would probably average them out.

   @lockeon, the short answer is that I have seen no breakdown by SMSA. But I will take a crack at the totals for the greater New York as the individual counties that comprise it are identified. One then could compare it against the totals for the 4 states that comprise it. My guess is that it would represent quite of bit of the cases/deaths for the four states (although I may have to compares how it looks with and without the Pennsylvania counties included).

   

   Here is the data: On 4/13/20 the greater NY SMSA represented 88.4% of the cases for the four states of NY, NJ, CT and PA. If you eliminate the 5 counties of PA that are in the far west of the SMSA, the remainder of the SMSA is 94.8% of the three remaining states in the SMSA.

   That is interesting, but I hoped we could find cases and/or deaths/million for a number of SMSAs which would let us test Marci’s theory that density correlates to disease spread.  (And my further assumption that you have to capture entire SMSAs to test it, because commuting.)  I may poke around and see how many states are reporting at the county level …

   Second thought:  What fraction of the population of NY/NJ/CT/PA does the SMSA represent?  And as compared to case percent? There’s a crude test right there.

10. Inactive
    Spin

    @Spin

    3:57 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):
    Just as many people are going to get very sick and die than if we had done nothing, potentially even more over a longer period of time.

    Maybe, but the idea is that if you get really sick in an area where a lot of people are getting really sick, but you’ve got access to medical care, then maybe you get really sick but you don’t die.  That’s the theory, and it’s not a bad one.  It maybe applies in New York, and Chicago, and Seattle.  It doesn’t apply where I live.  Turns out it also didn’t apply in Seattle.  

11. Inactive
    Hammer, The

    @RyanM

    3:58 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):

     

     

    Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

    All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

    Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

     

     

    And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

    Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia. In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

    Yes, for sick people. That’s why you see masks at doctors’ offices.

    No, both the original Bush administration guidance and the practice in East Asia during flu pandemics includes healthy people.

    And if we made every seatbelt a 5-point restraint we would save a lot of lives. Maybe also if we lowered the highway speed limit to 45. Just because something would be effective doesn’t mean it is a good idea. A society that wears masks is a society I have no desire to live in.

12. Inactive
    Hammer, The

    @RyanM

    4:02 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):

     

     

    Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

    All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

    Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

     

     

    And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

    Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia. In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

    Yes, for sick people. That’s why you see masks at doctors’ offices.

    No, both the original Bush administration guidance and the practice in East Asia during flu pandemics includes healthy people.

    Keeping in mind that it appears that some of the nominally ‘healthy’ people in the current situation are asymptomatic carriers who can spread the virus by touch or droplet.

    That has been said. I question how true it really is. And if it really is true, we will know because this thing will burn out quickly and the antibody testing will show pretty high numbers.  Fingers crossed.

13. Member
    Hoyacon

    @Hoyacon

    4:26 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Spin (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):
    Just as many people are going to get very sick and die than if we had done nothing, potentially even more over a longer period of time.

    Maybe, but the idea is that if you get really sick in an area where a lot of people are getting really sick, but you’ve got access to medical care, then maybe you get really sick but you don’t die. That’s the theory, and it’s not a bad one. It maybe applies in New York, and Chicago, and Seattle. It doesn’t apply where I live. Turns out it also didn’t apply in Seattle.

    That, and the fact that we have a decent idea about the virus sick and death toll from doing something, while the claims of illness and death from other causes are wholly speculative.

14. Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…

    @GumbyMark

    4:40 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):

     

     

    Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

    All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

    Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

     

     

    And yes. Masks (outside of the hospital environment) are an overreaction and a placebo and, to some extent, virtue signalling. Kind of like reusable bags.

    Masks (not talking here about the N95 type used in hospitals when dealing with COVID patients), when worn by the majority of people, have been shown to be effective in controlling flu outbreaks as shown by numerous studies in East Asia. In fact the original pandemic guidance under the Bush administration advised the public wearing of masks could be useful although that advice was reversed by the Obama administration.

    Yes, for sick people. That’s why you see masks at doctors’ offices.

    No, both the original Bush administration guidance and the practice in East Asia during flu pandemics includes healthy people.

    And if we made every seatbelt a 5-point restraint we would save a lot of lives. Maybe also if we lowered the highway speed limit to 45. Just because something would be effective doesn’t mean it is a good idea. A society that wears masks is a society I have no desire to live in.

    I was responding to your original argument that masks were ineffective.  Whether you or I want to wear them or not is a different matter.  

15. Member
    Rodin

    @Rodin

    4:43 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Locke On (View Comment):
    I hoped we could find cases and/or deaths/million for a number of SMSAs which would let us test Marci’s theory that density correlates to disease spread. (And my further assumption that you have to capture entire SMSAs to test it, because commuting.) I may poke around and see how many states are reporting at the county level …

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series/time_series_covid19_confirmed_US.csv

    That file has all US counties and case counts through 4/13.

16. Inactive
    Hammer, The

    @RyanM

    4:53 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo&hellip; (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):

     

     

    Some diseases (TB and measles are the classic examples) are airborne, meaning you have a good chance of being exposed to the pathogen simply by breathing the air in the same room as someone who has the disease. In medicine, we term the precautions that need to be taken when caring for these patients “airborne precautions”, the cornerstone of which is use of an N95 mask. Early on, there was concern that coronavirus is airborne. Studies have not borne that fear out.

    All the evidence points to the fact that coronavirus is transmitted the same way that most viruses (influenza and the common cold for example) are: primarily through droplets of respiratory secretions or saliva. It is strongly suspected that most transmission of viruses is done by touching contaminated surfaces and then a thin membrane such as that inside your mouth, nasal passage, or the conjunctiva of your eye. Droplets can be aerosolized during coughing or sneezing and there is some risk that particles could be inhaled that way, but that risk is considered low. The biggest problem with coughing or sneezing is that it spreads the particles to surfaces nearby, which other people then touch.

    Masks probably provide a small amount of protection and are a good idea as long as they are worn properly and are clean. A dirty mask may cause more risk than no mask, and an improperly worn mask will likely not work at all. The most value for masks in public is probably in having sick people wear them to contain their respiratory secretions.

     

     

     

    And if we made every seatbelt a 5-point restraint we would save a lot of lives. Maybe also if we lowered the highway speed limit to 45. Just because something would be effective doesn’t mean it is a good idea. A society that wears masks is a society I have no desire to live in.

    I was responding to your original argument that masks were ineffective. Whether you or I want to wear them or not is a different matter.

    Fair enough. I don’t think they are totally ineffective, though much less so than claimed. But I also don’t think they are effective enough to justify the cost.  Lastly, their “effectiveness” results not from personal assessment of risk, but must necessarily involve forcing others to comply, which is, again, an unacceptable cost.

17. Coolidge
    Headedwest

    @Headedwest

    5:10 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    For opponents of the lockdowns, what is the basis for believing the numbers would have been the same, or within acceptable ranges, without them?

    I believe the lockdowns were important to limiting not only infections, but potential deaths. The big question is how strict they should be and how long they should last.

    Lockdowns by themselves do not prevent deaths.  Since they cannot last forever, all they do is delay deaths.

18. Inactive
    Spin

    @Spin

    5:13 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):
    Just as many people are going to get very sick and die than if we had done nothing, potentially even more over a longer period of time.

    Maybe, but the idea is that if you get really sick in an area where a lot of people are getting really sick, but you’ve got access to medical care, then maybe you get really sick but you don’t die. That’s the theory, and it’s not a bad one. It maybe applies in New York, and Chicago, and Seattle. It doesn’t apply where I live. Turns out it also didn’t apply in Seattle.

    That, and the fact that we have a decent idea about the virus sick and death toll from doing something, while the claims of illness and death from other causes are wholly speculative.

    I don’t follow you…

19. Coolidge
    Headedwest

    @Headedwest

    5:13 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    But in favor of closing down schools are the facts that while the kids are building up herd immunity they’ll be spreading the virus to lots of people at home.

    In HK, the grandparents are not unlikely to be in the same home as the kids–in extremely close quarters.

    When we were parents of young children, we got sick more often than before we had kids, and after the kids were young.  I used to refer to my elementary age children as Petri dishes.

20. Inactive
    Spin

    @Spin

    5:18 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    A society that wears masks is a society I have no desire to live in.

    Well, we all have a face that we hide away forever.  And we take them out and show ourselves when everyone has gone.  

    So…yeah.  ;-)

21. Member
    Hoyacon

    @Hoyacon

    5:21 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Spin (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    AlphaBravo (View Comment):
    Just as many people are going to get very sick and die than if we had done nothing, potentially even more over a longer period of time.

    Maybe, but the idea is that if you get really sick in an area where a lot of people are getting really sick, but you’ve got access to medical care, then maybe you get really sick but you don’t die. That’s the theory, and it’s not a bad one. It maybe applies in New York, and Chicago, and Seattle. It doesn’t apply where I live. Turns out it also didn’t apply in Seattle.

    That, and the fact that we have a decent idea about the virus sick and death toll from doing something, while the claims of illness and death from other causes are wholly speculative.

    I don’t follow you…

    Understandable.  We hear quite a bit about the downstream effects of shutdowns–suicides, mental health issues, etc.  These are not quantifiable at present–in other words they are speculative.  Why are those intent on criticizing “social distancing” measures, based on questionable evidence, intent on speculating –based on pretty much no evidence–what the toll will be resulting from a moribund economy?

22. Inactive
    Spin

    @Spin

    5:25 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):
    I hoped we could find cases and/or deaths/million for a number of SMSAs which would let us test Marci’s theory that density correlates to disease spread. (And my further assumption that you have to capture entire SMSAs to test it, because commuting.) I may poke around and see how many states are reporting at the county level …

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series/time_series_covid19_confirmed_US.csv

    That file has all US counties and case counts through 4/13.

    I feel like some fun could be had with that file in Excel, using some pivot tables…if I weren’t already too worn out…

23. Inactive
    Spin

    @Spin

    5:26 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    For opponents of the lockdowns, what is the basis for believing the numbers would have been the same, or within acceptable ranges, without them?

    I believe the lockdowns were important to limiting not only infections, but potential deaths. The big question is how strict they should be and how long they should last.

    Lockdowns by themselves do not prevent deaths. Since they cannot last forever, all they do is delay deaths.

    They certainly don’t limit infections, as Susan suggests.  But they might limit deaths.  In certain areas.  

24. Coolidge
    OldPhil

    @OldPhil

    5:32 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    Fair enough. I don’t think they are totally ineffective, though much less so than claimed. But I also don’t think they are effective enough to justify the cost. Lastly, their “effectiveness” results not from personal assessment of risk, but must necessarily involve forcing others to comply, which is, again, an unacceptable cost.

    At Costco today, there were a lot of people with masks, maybe 75%. But many of them did not have gloves. WTH? 

    We wore gloves but not masks.

25. Coolidge
    OldPhil

    @OldPhil

    5:34 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Understandable. We hear quite a bit about the downstream effects of shutdowns–suicides, mental health issues, etc. These are not quantifiable at present–in other words they are speculative. Why are those intent on criticizing “social distancing” measure based on questionable evidence intent on speculating –based on pretty much no evidence–what the toll will be resulting from a moribund economy?

     

    I wouldn’t say people are criticizing social distancing per se, they’re questioning destroying the American economy. Two different things.

26. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    5:34 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Lockdowns by themselves do not prevent deaths. Since they cannot last forever, all they do is delay deaths.

    And cause deaths that result from economic disaster.

    Maybe in large numbers.

    Everything’s inductive reasoning here, and I don’t know enough about either kind of death to know which is a greater risk.

    Three things I do know are that poverty kills too, that there’s some risk in all courses of action, and that it’s ok to worry about the economy.

27. Coolidge
    Roderic

    @rhfabian

    5:35 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Children have strong immune systems.

    Most if not all have been asymptomatic.

    Why close down schools? We need children to build herd immunity for the rest of us

    Because children can transmit it to older people in their families and friend’s families.

     

28. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    5:37 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    At Costco today, there were a lot of people with masks, maybe 75%. But many of them did not have gloves. WTH?

    When my hands are dirty, I don’t touch my mouth, nose, or eyes. I don’t see my need for gloves.  When someone on the MTR coughs in my direction (or when it’s me coughing), gloves won’t help, but masks might.

    (A medical worker is a different story, of course.  Them peeps might have all kinds of reasons for gloves.)

29. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    5:40 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    I wouldn’t say people are criticizing social distancing per se, they’re questioning destroying the American economy. Two different things.

    Yeah.

    You can do a LOT of social distancing without shutting down the economy at anything anywhere near the rate we’re doing it in America.

30. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    5:47 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 14, 2020

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Children have strong immune systems.

    Most if not all have been asymptomatic.

    Why close down schools? We need children to build herd immunity for the rest of us

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Because we have strong evidence that asymptomatic carriers can effectively transmit the virus to others, and a school classroom is one of the higher order nodes in a real world personal network. And anyone who has kids or works with them knows they are germ ridden disease carriers in the best of circumstances.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    I can’t be certain that’s not the right way.

    But in favor of closing down schools are the facts that while the kids are building up herd immunity they’ll be spreading the virus to lots of people at home.

    In HK, the grandparents are not unlikely to be in the same home as the kids–in extremely close quarters.

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Because children can transmit it to older people in their families and friend’s families.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but maximizing herd immunity by opening schools while also protecting the elderly and other at-risk folks by quarantining them should be a viable strategy in many parts of America.

    Even when the grandparents are in the same home as the schoolkids, three weeks in the local hotel should make sense.

    The hotels would love to have some business, and would happily charge a reduced rate.  The local government might be able to pay for it; any step towards opening things up is good news for their tax revenue.