The better question is why aren’t we ventilating. It is justifiable to clean high contact surfaces as a precaution.
But this is like optimizing the last 2%. The most important thing other than masks and distancing would be opening windows, installing air purifiers that kill viruses, and setting hvac’s to bring in outside air. Co2 meters could be used to gauge effectiveness.
One year in official guidelines in most cases don’t mention ventilation and in some workplaces people are forbidden from ventilating because it isn’t in the guidelines.
We’d be a little chilly or a little warm, but the virus would spread much less readily.
Because most of it was "COVID theater" rather than intended to actually make people safer, the public cannot see the [likely more effective] things you're suggesting.
Same thing with checking temperature at the door (it doesn't work because people can either never get a fever or be infectious before/after one).
Even when it comes to masks we still have very few of the public using well fitting N95 and manufacturers mass-producing masks that barely even cover the side of people's faces (i.e. they don't work as well as they could, even for cloth!).
This was totally forgivable in the early days since "better than nothing" masks, but it has been almost a year and effective mask/mask usage still isn't being promoted nor guidelines for producing high quality masks exists.
Same thing with checking temperature at the door (it doesn't work because people can either never get a fever or be infectious before/after one).
Attempts to reduce infection do not require 100% success in order to be effective at reducing the transmission rate. If we estimated that say 10% of patients experienced a fever, then a temperature check reduces the number of potential exposures.
Except it can encourage people to be in public spaces and feel safe doing so.
I've literally had the conversation about going to a mall, and the person responding "but they're doing temperature checks at the doors!" as why it is safe.
The public has been [mis]led to believe that these checks work, and that may be the bigger problem than the checks themselves. I'm all for arguing "the enemy of better is perfect" except when you alter the general-public's behavior into less safe behaviors.
The problem with these kinds of discussions is that many people are morally scandalized by answers like "the mall is very important to me" or "I'm aware of and accept the marginal risk". So there's a lot of social pressure to come up with reasons why whatever you'd like to do is "safe", and those reasons don't necessarily reflect the actual thought process. Most likely your friend would be going to the mall regardless of what safety measures were in place.
I'm imagining a friend challenging me on whether it's safe to go out to get boba. I might point out that they don't have you wait inside the shop or that I avoid going when there's a long line, but the honest answer is that I really want boba and don't typically think about the risk in this level of detail.
If your argument is that some partially effective measures might have a paradoxically negative effect by encouraging unsafe behaviour, then that seems like a reasonable possibility to explore - and would require some data.
I personally struggle to think of any ways in which my behaviour would become less safe as a result of having my temperature taken when entering a store, but YMMV.
> I personally struggle to think of any ways in which my behaviour would become less safe as a result of having my temperature taken when entering a store, but YMMV.
Literally the example given--people don't feel the need to avoid going to a crowded, indoor space because "they're taking temperatures at the door".
You may not fall victim to this, but it's otherwise a pretty well-known phenomenon with some research:
I mean its literally not about you, its about the behavior of crowds and you are one N=1?
Also the people who object to this are generally the kind of people who don't realize how much their own opinions and behavior are molded by these things. If you don't realize that this goes on, and that it is effective, you are more likely to be one of the susceptible ones.
Yea I was shocked how I never got a fever with covid. Maybe a few hours at most. Kids had a fever for one night.
Wife and I were horribly exhausted for a week before any other symptoms showed up. So we just dismissed it as being tired. Even had a negative test during that week.
I'm fine with that if those extra measure are downside free. Except they are not, temperature check, mask, etc, incur extra cost, effort, inconvenience, annoyance, etc.
The question is whether its worth it ? For me its obviously No
What covid measures are down side free then? Should just nothing be done and we ramp up deaths for a slight inconvenience?
2 to 5 dollar masks that are proven to significantly reduce spread and a single employee standing outside with a hundred dollar thermometer to make sure no one with obvious symptoms comes in (they're also checking for people coughing as well) seems about as tiny an inconvenience as possible.
It's not 100 percent but we know how it spreads, people that actually need to go out have the ability to get the most effective PPE, and at this point we should be directing our efforts to vaccine distribution instead of improving covid protocols (or worse loosening them prematurely as we vaccinate) for the people bored at home.
"Conclusions. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19."
> Maybe the n95 mask can reduce spread but the clothes mask that most people use doesn't do much.
Numbers vary across studies and materials, but a mask of a single layer of moderate thread count cotton is 80-100% effective at filtration depending on particle size.
> I know it spread and it spread easily but fortunately for vast majority of case they will be asymptomatic or only have symptoms.
30% asymptomatic does not a "vast majority" make. More than 1 in 50 infected dying (or 1 in 12 in the cases of countries with significant infections) may not matter to you, but that's something to be avoided for most people. On-going research is continually revealing new long-term impacts of those that recover from the disease.
If you're genuinely asking, there's some reading material. You can find literally dozens of sources refuting each of your claims. If you're not, I'm not really interested in a debate.
>"Conclusions. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19."
Fine, still correlation doesn't mean causation
>Numbers vary across studies and materials, but a mask of a single layer of moderate thread count cotton is 80-100% effective at filtration depending on particle size.
The issue is the virus is smaller than the mask pores.
>30% asymptomatic does not a "vast majority"
what i mean is both asymptomatic case + mild symptom combined
> 1 in 50 infected dying
Thats probably for the age 80 or above.
For most people remain, its nothing to be afraid of.
It is not at all obvious. I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. It might be a theory worth investigating further; you have no basis for claiming that it is obvious, particularly because you lump multiple entirely different methods of mitigation together in a big “obviously not worth it” bucket when they self-evidently have such different characteristics that they cannot be treated in the same way.
> Same thing with checking temperature at the door (it doesn't work because people can either never get a fever or be infectious before/after one).
But it stops some cases, which is much better than no cases.
> Even when it comes to masks we still have very few of the public using well fitting N95 and manufacturers mass-producing masks that barely even cover the side of people's faces (i.e. they don't work as well as they could, even for cloth!).
Because the unfitted masks significantly reduce the amount of large particulates (ie, saliva) spread into the air, because they're caught by the mask which is directly in front of the mouth/nose.
Arguing that seatbelts shouldn't be used because they don't prevent all injuries doesn't make much sense. Sure, we can do better, but it's not "COVID theater". It's rational, useful actions being taken to mitigate the impact of COVID.
> Arguing that seatbelts shouldn't be used because they don't prevent all injuries doesn't make much sense.
That's an incredibly disingenuous/uncharitable analogy for what I actually posted. A more accurate one would be:
> Two-point Seatbelts cause massive internal injuries during an accident, why haven't we improved them/the guidelines in producing them after 40+ years? (see period from 1910 to 1960).
Cloth masks were created in a rush to fill a void. Then a year passed. In that year nobody spent time/money improving/researching the design of cloth for better coverage nor did we increase the supply/availability of more effective filter material/fitment.
It is fair to criticize the lack of improvement partially given the urgent public health crisis.
Only, cloth masks _haven't_ caused massive damage, or even any damage. They've prevented damage, possibly _massive_ damage.
Can we do better? Yes. Are cloth masks useless "theater"? No, not even remotely.
> That's an incredibly disingenuous/uncharitable analogy for what I actually posted
It's really not. It would be disingenuous if it was aimed at one part of your post (we can do better). However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.
> Only, cloth masks _haven't_ caused massive damage, or even any damage.
I think you replied to the wrong comment/comment chain, it said nothing even ballpark like that. The word "damage" doesn't appear in the comment chain aside from this comment.
> Are cloth masks useless "theater"?
Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed.
> However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.
That quote is a fabrication. The word "useless" doesn't even appear in this comment chain aside from this post/quote.
So when you're creating fake quotes and making multiple baseless claims (quite literally putting in words/quotes that don't exist), it is the epitome of disingenuous.
I was "converting" from _injuries_ (in relation to seat belts) to _damage_ (in relation to masks) as the closest parallel I could make. My apologies that it wasn't clear.
----
>> Are cloth masks useless "theater"?
> Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed.
I was grouping the comment about how most of what had been done was "COVID theater" and the comment about masks together. The overall post read, to me, in a way that made it sound like the former also applied to the later. That may not have been intended.
----
>> However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.
> That quote is a fabrication.
It's another wording for part of the original post. The double quotes were intended to indicate the grouping/meaning, not the actual words. I've been using ">" where something is an actual quote, which is generally standard for text communication, but I can see where it might be confusing to someone not used to it.
> most of it was "COVID theater" rather than intended to actually make people safer
That statement, I believe, comes across very clearly as presenting a lot of what was done as useless.
----
I'm going to stop on this thread, as replying to multiple individual blocks of text (as I have done here) tends to be a sign that things have either gotten off topic or people are going to stop caring.
The high level summary of what I originally meant was that I believe the steps we are taking are very useful, but agree we should be doing more.
>> But it stops some cases, which is much better than no cases.
Any test that gives a false sense of security may cause people to do things that they otherwise should not, such as travel. Spot temperature checks are not effective but doing them at airports makes people feel safer. Safe-feeling people travel more, spreading more virus.
They aren't arguing that cloth masks are useless, rather that they should not be the standard.
Following the car analogy, it's like not stopping at seat belts and adding airbags and traction control and so on. The improved measure (high quality masks) is inexpensive enough that it should be the standard.
I think the comment you’re replying to was saying covid theater is the cleaning and temp checks, not the masks.
As for masks, I still see people wearing bandanas and scarves all the time, and my understanding is these are much less effective than even a simple surgical mask. I think your bar is much too low, sounds like you’re saying as long as we’re doing more than nothing that’s good enough.
There’s no excuse almost a year in that there exist masks which are significantly more effective than what most people are wearing and we’re making no effort to encourage people to use them.
> I think your bar is much too low, sounds like you’re saying as long as we’re doing more than nothing that’s good enough.
That's not what I meant, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. What I meant was that we're doing a number of different things that aren't perfect... and I constantly see people complain about it not being perfect so why are we doing it... and my response is that every little bit helps. I agree that we can and should be doing more. I just think saying what is being done now is mostly useless theater is ridiculous and dangerous, and results in people not bothering to take even basic precautions "because it doesn't help".
Speaking as the creator of a high-quality mask (eye protection, good seal, >99.99% viral filtration efficiency filters), the lack of guidelines on what makes for a good mask have been flabbergasting. And what is there is incredibly lackluster - usually nothing very good on how to check your seal, or about eye protection, or about ensuring your filters are still any good on a disposable mask.
I honestly can't believe that at this point in the pandemic, full-face respirators haven't been adapted to have exhale filters and widely distributed. I think our product (https://narwallmask.com) is still the only such device, and I'm just some software engineer who thought to do something.
Probably because hospital staff are the ones who would afford it and truly benefit. Maybe some patients there. It's probably too late for most of them.
Single use masks are much easier, but indeed there's a lot of mask-like products that have enough leakage to let a tank through, or have an unfiltered vent which is unacceptable.
I found you while researching how to verify a mask is good as an end-user, because I cannot get a good seal out of any of the six types of FFP2-masks I have tried. On the one hand, I've always been on the lookout for something similar. On the other hand, there are a few showstoppers that keep me from buying.
* Looks. Even if I can decide to look like the Reddit alien in a motorcycle helmet while everybody else is wearing an FFP2 mask, there is no way I can persuade my wife or kids. Would it be possible to make the exhaust pipe a bit more inconspicuous? E.g. inhale from the left cheek, exhale to the right cheek?
* Filtration efficiency and trust. There is a reason the FFP2/FFP3 standards test with 0.3um sized particles - those are the most difficult to filter out. Your marketing copy talks about 0.4um and 0.1um, and the headline screems about 3um large virus particles, which are even less relevant. Even though the 0.4um numbers look close to FFP3, any official certification is missing. Is it safe to say that your product does not meet the FFP2 standards?
Additionally, I'd love a mask that does not saturate out within minutes if I am panting (from chasing after kids).
* Facial expressions. If you could make the mouth covering transparent, it would show my mimics in a conversation. That could be a killer feature, especially for socializing (or salesy jobs).
* Glasses and field of vision.
* Sticker price shock. Most FFP2/KN95 masks are counterfeit and none have a good seal, so I might as well grab the ones for $0.17 a piece from aliexpress. But, I am already spending much more on other Covid safety measures.
EDIT: Can you give me an accessible way to experience the mask's safety? So far, the best criterion I have come up with is if I can smell the smoke when I'm standing next to a smoker. In defense of that metric: There are absolutely no credible alternatives proposed on the internet. Mask fit used to be tested officially with noxious smoke. Cigarette smoke particles are pretty close in size to the virus-laden droplets. But in practise, an FFP2 mask passes this test only if I tape over all of its edges with a band-aid, and my skin won't tolerate that day-in day-out.
Ultimately, most of this comes down to your risk tolerance - how much is quality covid protection worth to you? I agree that looks are more likely to be the barrier there than $85, which as you mentioned is high relative to cheap disposable masks but low relative to how bad covid is. Regarding looking weird, I can only point to our product reviews where users consistently find that they are, to their surprise, not treated like aliens: https://narwallmask.com/products/narwall-mask#reviews
Re; filtration, we link to a test data sheet showing that the filter material is tested by Nelson Labs, a major lab testing company. I'm not sure where you get the 0.4um or 1um numbers from - the particle size we test to is 0.1um, and the viruses used in Nelson Labs' VFE testing are much smaller than that (google "Nelson Labs VFE").
Back in the 70s or so, they thought 0.3um was the most difficult size particle to filter, which is why the standards test for that; since then, studies have shown that 0.1um is actually slightly more difficult, but everything in that range is near the bottom of the parabolas and tends to be very close.
I can try to link to some papers on this later but I'm on mobile right now.
Our size guide is next to the size selector on our website; I'll try to make that easier to find.
Thanks for your reply. I've elaborated some in the grandparent. I am willing to pay for quality once it is rigorously demonstrated.
The safety issue comes down to this paragraph in your FAQ:
What is the filter material and how is it tested? Our filters are made in the USA with material tested to >99.997% VFE (viral filtration efficiency) by Nelson Labs. Another metric is PFE (particle filtration efficiency). The N95 standard for 0.3-micron PFE is >95.00%, while Narwall's filter material is tested to >99.50% 0.1-micron PFE. You can learn more about these particle sizes here.
The way I read it, you test for 3um (VFE is that according to https://fixthemask.medium.com/the-standards-for-face-masks-i...) and 0.1um, but not 0.3um. I'd be happy if you could point me to papers that those two sizes cover 0.3um and saturation issues.
Is there some kind of independent verification of efficacy and safety of the whole device, not just the mask?
As a minor point - the sticker price is closer to $820 (4 persons times mask and 6 months of filters and international shipping).
I am legally required to wear a medical-grade mask (FFP2 or surgical). Do you have an official-looking document to show to the authorities?
> SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter
Making the 0.1μm measure more relevant.
Ultimately, it's up to your judgement whether to determine these filters are likely to be at least as useful as alternatives, bearing in mind that a poor seal/fit (which you may get with other masks) reduces effective filtration by quite a bit.
Apart from the aforementioned testing of our filter material, and the third-party fit tests (https://narwallmask.com/#h:testing), the CDC's National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, under NIOSH, is currently assessing the mask but has yet to release results.
Another option you could pursue is a half-face elastomeric respirator with a surgical mask securely taped over the exhale valve, coupled with tight-fitting goggles. It may be less convenient and may or may not achieve the aesthetic properties you seek, but those masks have been around long enough to be evaluated by government bodies for their ability to protect the wearer (though, not the public).
This makes it easy to tell that you have a complete seal.
The fact that your existing masks do not pass without tape indicates that you do not have a seal, and the filtration numbers you're seeing are reduced by many percentage points (eg; from 95% to 90% or lower) as air enters the mask unfiltered through the sides.
I have not performed the cigarette test myself, and haven't seen information indicating it is a reliable covid test, but you are certainly welcome to try it with a Narwall! I'd be keen for your results, and could provide a discount in exchange for the information.
For me, the Narwall's main value proposition beyond a standard FFP2 respirator is a super tight seal. Smoke is probably the best proxy I can test that with.
Would you be open to a full refund if I order it and can still smell cigarette smoke?
Would a negative pressure test suffice? (See our website). Smoke may have a false negative, as odorants are many times smaller than the target challenge particles.
Unfortunately not. There is a huge safety difference between a negative pressure test ("fit check" below) and a test with an actual aerosol ("qualitative fit test"). All of the FFP2 respirators I have checked pass one and fail the other. I am hoping the Narwallmask can fill this gap.
Due to the associated time and costs, some health officials propose the elimination of fit testing and advocate that a fit check is sufficient in determining respirator fit [39]. The NIOSH conducted a study that demonstrated protection of N95/FFP2 masks improved from 67% without fit testing to 96% with fit testing [40]. Subsequently, NIOSH determined fit check alone to be insufficient and fit testing should be mandatory when selecting filtering facepiece respirators or elastomer half mask respirators.
Three studies that included 1111 Asians assessed the ability of fit check to detect leak determined by a quantitative fit test [36, 41, 42]. Average (range) sensitivity and specificity of the fit check to correctly detect leak were 26 (14–40)% and 79 (58–92)%, respectively, and consequent average (range) fit test pass rate following ‘successful’ fit check was 56 (34–73)%. Another study found the protection factor of filtering facepiece respirators increased from 3.3 to 20.5 when comparing the results of the entire test panel with those who had passed the fit test [32]. However, non‐fitted filtering facepiece respirators are still likely to provide greater protection than surgical masks, with a measured protection factor of 1.2 (Table 1) [32].
In summary, while fit check remains recommended before each use of any respirator to ensure fit on a day‐to‐day basis (Grade 1C evidence), we recommend not to use fit check as a substitute for fit testing to identify the size and shape of respirator that fits best (Grade 1B evidence).
For what it's worth, I think we provide tools to perform more accurate fit checks than are possible with other masks, but of course I don't have data to back that up, and this is a situation that warrants caution.
The smoke check sounds like a great idea too, I just can't confirm that it will produce a true result for Narwall since we haven't specifically evaluated that methodology.
Even if we can't accept a full return because the mask has been tried on, we always offer partial refunds at least when a customer isn't satisfied for any reason, if that's any help.
They're continuing to say we shouldn't wear N95 masks, to save them for healthcare workers. This has always seemed to me like a short-sighted and reactive approach, instead of proactively starving the supply of infected people by masking up everybody.
the problem is N95 masks are not available. Hospitals are still rationing them to doctors who are dealing with COVID patients. That is those with the greatest need/risk cannot get a N95 mask. There is some supply coming online, but it is slow.
Note that KF94 and KN95 masks are somewhat available, I'd recommend my friends use them, but not my friends' friends as supply isn't enough to cover the friends of my friends. These are the Korea and Chinese equivalent to N95, perhaps not as good, but still a lot better. There is also a European standard, but I haven't seen it anywhere in the US.
IIRC KF94 were designed as an easier to make general population mask in event of a pandemic (after SARS etc). It wasn’t meant to match N95 (or Korea’s equivalent), but to get close.
Ideally the US would have an equivalent, or have encouraged manufacture of one long ago, but we all know how that went.
Apparently KN95 isn't as good for preventing liquid transmission (I assume this is important in surgeries) but KN95 is just as good if not a little better protection against aerosoled covid.
Yeah, Taiwan got that right - they had the military help with mask production even before any other country considered that this might spread beyond China.
I don’t think that’s all of it. I live in a region that eliminate the virus locally (nova scotia). They deeply care about success and have taken effective measures.
....but they still largely focus on deep cleaning rather than ventilation! And they emphasize the six foot rule in their contact tracing.
I think the true explanation has to do with first impressions. People seem to have stuck on whatever they first heard in Feb-April. And it is harder for an institution to change its mind than for an individual.
On masks, for example, I think the mantra of “masks protect others, they don’t protect you” has stuck even though other types of mask also filter incoming air. People just don’t update their beliefs too easily.
Funny thing, the most effective measure we found in addition to masks is the careful installation of plexiglass or similar panes similar to face shields, at cash registers and other public facing counters.
Next, hand disinfectant or gloves.
I'm hoping that this is unique to my country but a lot of such "kills virus" products I've seen are a)diluted bleach, or b)ozone generator, or c)UV lamps, none of which is safe near a person and none of which is effective at its job. It was my impression that there's no need to consult 4chan to assess the cost and benefit associated with inhaling bleach.
Air purifiers with HEPA filters can effectively trap the virus in the filter [1].
Air purifiers with HEPA filters aren't terribly expensive and DIY options are possible (e.g., [2]) although I have also read that this setup is not as efficient at filtering as a purpose-built air filter [3] but also probably much better than nothing.
Worse, we seem to be stuck on the idea that being “outside” is the safe thing, so restaurants are now beginning to build “outside” seating with plywood walls and plexiglass windows. Which is to say that they’re building half-assed temporary buildings with no ventilation.
We would’ve been far better off as a society if we’d kept inside dining and improved our HVAC regulations for large gathering areas. It probably would permanently suppress common cold & flu numbers too, since those are also respiratory in nature.
I was forced to fly on a plane already this year for a can't-miss embassy appointment. I had read that research, but wore two layers of masks anyway.
I did not catch anything, and in fact, I don't think I'll ever fly on a plane again without a mask, even long after the acute danger of COVID-19 has passed. I physically felt the best I've ever felt while flying!
I was very much aware of airflow on the plane, which seemed really good once we were in the air. Not so much while we were still on the ground.
I am willing to accept those observation and the conclusion might very well hold under a truly independent study made on a wide range of planes and conditions.
It does not remove the fact that we should not relay observation about health and safety made by teams with significant (disclosed or undisclosed) conflict of interest.
Furthermore, these measures were specifically introduced to combat the spread. Previously, planes were a cesspool, you were almost guaranteed to catch a cold on a long distance flight. (Every. Time.)
Not very many relative to the number of people on planes
What does that even mean? Of course the number of people who catch covid on a flight is relative to the number of people on planes. If fewer people fly, fewer people will catch covid, and vv - I think we can all agree on that. A better comparison is between how many will people catch covid on a flight compared to how many would catch it if they didn't fly at all. How many is not many? 1%? 2%?
There are a lot of things we know would help but are hard to do. Its easy to have employees wipe surfaces at your store, but massively expensive to install some kind of new upward pulling powerful ventillation system.
its easy for a city to close a park down, but hard for a city to tell every bar and restaurant to go out of business, or to pay them to survive while closed.
But if we put a good air purifier on each table at a bar/restaurant would that reduce spread enough that people can go out to eat? It doesn't have to be perfect, just statistically enough better that we don't have to lock down quite as hard.
Nobody has done an analysis of this that I can tell even though it is obvious. It seems like a HEPA air filter next to the salt shaker (in the middle of the table so you are generally breathing in its direction) could get a useful fraction of the virus. Then some larger room filters, maybe an upper room UV-C light....
If restaurants are told close or install the above system they will install that system. I know restaurants near me installed tents in the summer which may not have worked much better than the above.
> The better question is why aren’t we ventilating
Industrial places: they have AC but unfortunately the way most if not all of these are built they're germ spreaders rather than germ catchers. Retrofitting or modifying existing installations is expensive and the tradespeople doing this kind of job have been in high demand everywhere since years now.
Schools: same as above - ACs or ventilation in schools exist mostly in new buildings which have had energy efficiency requirements respected during design, retrofitting is often impossible (e.g. due to low room heights), and the "there are no tradespeople" argument from above also applies here, with the added difficulty that government jobs pay pennies compared to what industry puts up. To make stuff worse: many school buildings have outright broken windows - in Cologne / Germany for example one in five schools has windows that don't open, sometimes for many years (https://www.ksta.de/koeln/keine-lueftung-moeglich-trotz-coro...).
Windows not opening might be intentional. I've worked in a couple of tall buildings where the windows don't open very far. Someone told me it was so people can't jump out, though I always suspected it was so you couldn't mess up the temperature on the floor.
The article is really not as definitive about it as I was expecting from the title.
Basically it’s “we don’t really know, we don’t even really examine most sources of infection, we’ve never done controlled trials on it, you can find the virus on lots of surfaces, most of the time it’s probably not infectious but sometimes it could be, there have been a few documented cases of infections from surfaces”.
It’s clearly a lower risk than airborne transmission but it seems like we can’t say with much certainty how low.
The only estimate of a risk probability mentioned is a 5 in 10000 chance of being infected if you’re out in public touching things. Not even sure if this was from a real study or just an expert’s back of the envelope calculation. I don’t know exactly the parameters involved but if you had taken that chance every day for the past year you would have had a 17% chance of getting infected at some point which is relatively significant. And seems like it would be likely worse at times the outbreak is at a higher peak, or if you’re an essential worker taking that chance multiple times a day.
If you currently have elimination, it makes sense to deep clean potentially infected surfaces. For example if you're a New Zealand restaurant which seated the woman who subsequently turned out to be infected last week, when you got notified by the public health department you might want to clean everything just in case before re-opening, as well as having all the staff who had contact with her take a test, and so on. Such practices are costly, but a new outbreak would be far more expensive for everybody.
Where it makes less sense is if you have endemic virus and you're basically not bothering to even control that why bother cleaning surfaces when they'll be re-contaminated shortly afterwards? In fact several countries have this practice while also ensuring sick people who work as cleaners feel obligated to stay on the job to feed their families, so the people cleaning may spread the virus.
As to ventilation, that's expensive. One hypothesis for that New Zealand case is that she was infected through the AC at the isolation hotel. Another guest in that hotel tested positive and was transferred to quarantine but obviously you could be infectious days before you test positive. That hotel is being closed for an upgrade, but this is expensive and it's only practical for New Zealand to do this for their managed isolation & quarantine facilities, in a country with endemic virus you'd want to do it in every building.
Personally I just assume all surfaces outside my home are contaminated, and any humans who get within a few metres are infectious and spreading viral particles. But I'm lucky, I don't have to go out and do a job out there.
Presumably ventilation improvements will continue to pay off in the future.
Which isn't to say that it is easy to just upgrade everything, more that we should account for how damaging an airborne virus can be when we construct facilities.
Purifying air is cheap. Whole house purifiers cost at most $8,000 installed. Most people spend 3-8x that on a car. Many people on HN own a Tesla. They can afford it.
I've said this from the very beginning of the pandemic that it makes no sense at all focusing on surfaces and raiding stores for hand sanitizer. Even the CDC themselves says this:
"On the other hand, transmission of novel coronavirus to persons from surfaces contaminated with the virus has not been documented."
As far as I remember, in the early days it was assumed that most spread was via visible droplets and surface because all well-studied viruses that spread by aerosol would spread much faster in a zero-immunity population than observed with SARS-COV2. But those are all viruses that have many generations of adopting to humans under their belt. Compared to them the new one seems to be barely able to make landfall in humans at all. Now we know full well that the virus is aerosol-capable and the implied "surprisingly bad compatibility with humans" is consistent with the number of observed mutations that spread faster, probably quite a few evolutionary low hanging fruits to increase hit rate while spreading.
Back to topic, I think that in early days the surface focus wasn't a bad guess, it just happened to be wrong.
Obviously this is disputed, because it's impossible to tell - saying "not been documented" is quite a neutral statement.
Even if surface transmission is unlikely, a single case could be enough to trigger a wider outbreak. So, if you are doing what you can to prevent aerosol transmission, then it also makes sense to minimise surface transmission.
That is just a hypothesis. We know little about the soundness of the evaluation of all likely vectors for this case. Also, "if it would save just one life" is where you're going with the last sentence. Diverting attention into non-existent or rare transmission vectors removes attention from known transmission vectors, which will increase infections.
> Also, "if it would save just one life" is where you're going with the last sentence.
Please read again. If a virus is transmitted even once via a surface, it is then free to transmit onwards by whatever method is most efficient. This is likely to cause an outbreak whenever R>1.
Preventing an additional outbreak is more relevant in NZ than in the US, perhaps.
I don't recall ever hearing the CDC say that masks don't work. My understanding is that initially there were recommendations against the general public wearing masks out of a concern that mass buying may have limited their availability to health care providers. In any case, the science is pretty clear now that they do work.
In order to limit buying the CDC pushed the lie that masks would not significantly affect the chance of catching COVID in a non-hospital setting. Then when that became too obviously wrong and PPE supply increased they changed their tune. This cost me a LOT of trust in the institution — that they would lie to manipulate mass behavior. Even early in the pandemic, the Asian countries which got the pandemic under control all required masks, and they have experience with coronaviruses.
After the above fiasco I don’t trust the CDC or any U.S. local or federal government agency to say that COVID won’t spread on surfaces when they are motivated to say so to save significant money and resources by skipping disinfection protocols.
>Who does not need PPE:
CDC does NOT currently recommend the general public use facemasks. Instead, CDC recommends following everyday preventive actions, such as washing your hands, covering your cough, and staying home when you are sick.
I very distinctly remember them saying "there is no evidence to suggest wearing a mask reduces the chances of contracting COVID-19" which is extremely different from saying they don't work, especially in the early days when there was barely any evidence/data at all.
> In order to limit buying the CDC pushed the lie that masks would not significantly affect the chance of catching COVID in a non-hospital setting.
Is it actually a lie? I don't believe there is conclusive evidence either way. (It certainly doesn't appear to have made much difference here where we have had a mask mandate for months).
> “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” tweeted Dr. Jerome Adams, the U.S. Surgeon General, on Feb. 29. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"
Our CDC ( Dutch equivalent RIVM.nl ) actually said they believed masks might be dangerous as it might give a false sense of security and ordinary citizens would not be able to handle them properly.
Mask are mandatory now in confined public spaces, but they have never started a campaign to train the public to handle the mask properly.
In California, once the guidance changed on masks in April they were still hard to buy so the guidance was “if you don’t have a mask, just wear a bandana or scarf over your face”. We have studies showing that this doesn’t work nearly as well as a surgical mask much less an n95, but I still see people doing it all the time.
There hasn’t been a public health campaign in the past 9 months to say “now that the shortage is over, wear a mask that actually works” which is crazy to me.
That false security hypothesis is an interesting specimen. I remember not buying it because masks would also serve as a permanent reminder of urgency, more than countering false security effects.
But looking back at it from 2021, I can easily imagine that while most people wouldn't engage in any false security follies now, after months of various levels of lockdown, (except for those who are just as capable of follies without a mask), back then things might have been very different.
It would take quite some confidence now to return to old habits, but then it wasn't return to but not breaking. Not breaking old habits was hard enough even without a false security token, even the tiniest glimpse of security theatre could have blocked a lot.
I do recall hearing similar concerns hear in the US (although I can't recall now where these statements originated from. People wearing masks improperly is certainly frustrating. (e.g. nose out, chin strap, etc.)
Yeah, and the rest of the world still said "masks are a good idea" through all of that. It was pretty obvious what the CDC was up to at the time (trying not to cause panic buying, etc) but it was a terrible idea for them to do it.
Fauci and the WHO said the same thing. Only mask if you're sick or if you take care of sick people around you but you don't need to mask if you're healthy.
Edit: [0] is a archived version of the WHO public advice about when to use mask from late april. It probably was up even longer:
> If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.
The rest of the world didn't say that. Many of the world's politicians felt the need to be seen to be doing something, so forced masks upon us despite little hard evidence.
I am also afraid of the "fear of people" trait that we all have gained during this pandemic sticking as well. Before pandemic, me and my friends were able to just share a bar/cafe table with 5 random strangers and have a beer with them, nowadays it feels it is impossible for me to do something like that.
It won't last. Whenever restrictions have been lifted in Europe, restaurants and pubs quickly go back to full capacity. Right now in Italy and Poland, thousands of establishments have defied lockdown and reopened, and it turns out that a large number of local population was waiting eagerly to go out again.
Wouldn't this observation be biased? The paranoid would know socializing is still not safe, and the reckless would think "Relax, it's just a flu", and so you'd see bars full but full of the reckless.
But many of the paranoid are paranoid due to social factors, not due to a reasoned reading of COVID data. So, once large gatherings of people return, the social pressure on the paranoid will be less and their paranoia will abate.
The one good thing that has come out of this is that most people now wash their hands after using the toilet. I used to see so many people not washing their hands and in a gym where everyone touches everything it is quite disgusting.
Aside from being just unpleasant also a major source of infection (norovirus, rotavirus, etc often called "24 hour bugs"/stomach bugs/erroneously "food poisoning").
You know there are downsides to being too clean. Your body needs some low level pathogens to fight off to exercise your immune system. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448690/ The trendy term for this is maintaining your microbiome.
Reading between the lines - because there was some suggestion that surface transmission might be a problem, this is largely now thought not be be the case, but it’s a relatively low-cost measure that was already put in place and increases public confidence, even though broadly speaking it’s likely to have a minimal effect on transmission rates.
Cleaning high-contact surfaces was not an unreasonable precaution to take; it’s probably something we will slowly stop doing now as the pandemic starts to ease.
Here in Russia they're paying a disproportional amount of attention to surfaces. The covid law in both Moscow and St Petersburg mandates masks and gloves. McDonalds gives you plastic gloves and doesn't give you your order until you put them on, but pretty much no one else is having it. Though all signs and announcements do mention gloves just so it appears that the law is being followed.
The Real question here imho is how can we reduce the gap between knowledge and actions. We know all sorts of things but governments outside Australia and Singapore seem totally unable and unwilling to do basic things like enforce mask wearing or run testing or tracing programs.
Too much deep cleaning is fine frankly, it's too few masks, no quarantine of travellers, workplaces remaining open etc that's the issue.
I think in a lot of cases it's already been budgeted, it sends a signal that care is being taken and also it probably is helping reduce spread even if the benefit is small. And if not covid, it's at least killing other germs.
There's not really any proof that hygiene hypothesis leads to better outcomes. Yes, the immune system generally only strengthens when it's exposed to pathogens, but being exposed to lots of pathogens also damages your body. And controlled exposure to pathogens (ie, vaccines) can trigger an immune response without injury. So, we're likely trading weaker immune systems for millions fewer deaths. Look at the mortality rates due to infectious disease in countries with poor sanitation.
Regular deep cleanings and disinfections of "shared surfaces" has a distinct advantage, even if it doesn't help much against SARS-CoV2: it reduces the spread of other contagions - like the regular influenza, herpes, hep-a or e.coli. The regular flu, for example, is all but non-existent in the world at the moment.
If there is one thing to be learned from the whole covid-19 disaster, it is that a lot of life and productivity loss can be prevented by relatively simple measures.
The question remains whether these measures are cost-effective.
You can't put a price on human life(unless you're an insurance company), but you definitely can on sick days.
I have a data point, namely a few friends who seasonally get the flu and take sick days for that. On average it shaves off ~2% of their annual work hours.
At this rate I can't tell if this is worth the trouble, especially that a few of them definitely catch those viruses from their kindergarten-attending children.
This is a lot of lost productivity, even when one takes into account that the 2019 flu season was nasty (I was off for two weeks too, hardest hit in about one and a half decades for me).
Side note: I assume you're American - just ask yourself how many of your friends and colleagues go to work while symptomatic because you don't have mandatory sick days that don't count against regular vacation and so end up spreading contagions... I agree that the sick days number in Germany seems quite excessive but I rather had a loss in productivity than getting sick from co-workers and ending out sick for weeks.
Same reason we're still wearing masks, I'd imagine. It's not necessarily about what is the most effective, it's about increasing the odds.
And more than that, it's about what's seen by politicians, their constituents, the media, and society at large as effective. Safety theater, as another commenter put it.
The most effective thing is to eliminate close contact with anyone you don't live with, but is something all of us can't do. So reducing contact and wearing a mask IS the most effective and realistic measure.
I find apalling that you call it "safety theater". What is YOUR big solution?
It's written on the box : does not stop germs or viruses. A mask is made for surgeons to stop blood or other bodily fluids. Furthermore, disposable masks are full of harmful chemical compounds. And last, if you wear a mask and touch it you bring the germs closer to your mouth. And last, if you're not ill you ain't transmittin' nothin'. This is a joke.
Covid is not really airborne in the sense it doesn't float by itself but travels through micro droplets of saliva, which is... (dramatic pause) a bodily fluid!
How on Earth, after a year, you are so ignorant about it?
That was the messaging in the first couple of months, and why social distancing was thought to be sufficient: The droplets would fall to the ground before traveling very far.
Then several months later we started hearing about how the virus can hang in the air for hours in buildings with poor ventilation; that's aerosols, not droplets. At that point social distancing does almost nothing, and even masks are questionable since it can far far more easily go around the edges of any masks, and slip through cloth masks in ways droplets can't.
I am not going to debate my own ignorance, only fact here : you're impolite sir. And you know that most germs are destroyed by oxygen and sunlight ? And the spanish flu backfire was provoked by masks ? And microdroplets fall to the ground they do not levitate in the air ? Do you know about gravity ?
Many people are contagious without realizing it. Some of my own family spread it between each other on Christmas and the spreader wasn't symptomatic until after they had infected others.
The event was within guidelines. And even if you they are assholes that doesn't change the point that you can't say "people who aren't sick don't need to wear masks", since people are unable to self determine if they are sick or not.
But this is like optimizing the last 2%. The most important thing other than masks and distancing would be opening windows, installing air purifiers that kill viruses, and setting hvac’s to bring in outside air. Co2 meters could be used to gauge effectiveness.
One year in official guidelines in most cases don’t mention ventilation and in some workplaces people are forbidden from ventilating because it isn’t in the guidelines.
We’d be a little chilly or a little warm, but the virus would spread much less readily.