3 ms·

Not quite sure I get the reasoning in that link. Sure, it's not likely to decrease your direct infection risk. But it does decrease the risk of you infecting

by zxcmx 7y ago

Not quite sure I get the reasoning in that link. Sure, it's not likely to decrease your direct infection risk. But it does decrease the risk of you infecting others. At any given time you can't really know if you're infected or not if the virus is widespread. Also the mask would presumably be more effective than coughing into your elbow or a tissue, which they do recommend. So why not wear them? Why recommend them for healthcare workers but not the general public? I'm wondering if the unstated reasoning is that widespread mask usage freaks people out and increases the chance of large scale panic.

_-___________-_ 7y ago
> At any given time you can't really know if you're infected or not if the virus is widespread. Unless you're in China, the virus is not widespread. I imagine they would change their recommendation if it was. > So why not wear them? Why recommend them for healthcare workers but not the general public? The chance that a healthcare worker who is treating a suspected CoV case is in close contact with an infected patient is close to 100%. On the other hand, the chance that a member of the general public outside of mainland China comes into close contact with someone who is infected, whether they're in the rest of Asia or not, is within a few orders of magnitude of 0.00001%.
- zxcmx 7y ago
  Yes, totally agree. I wonder what the rational tipping point would be for mask vs no mask.
- ericb 7y ago
  1-Since travel is still occuring out of mainland China, your faith in the virus being limited to the nation of China seems misplaced. 2-Your estimates of the probability are unlikely shift properly as the landscape of infection changes rapidly, and is not apparent to the naked eye. Humans intuitively do not tend to comprehend exponential/quadratic growth. This video outlines it. The main point is to look how late, in this scenario you'd be saying "no problem" and how quickly it goes from fine, to effed. Note: this is not an endorsement on the other items in this channel, I just think this particular explanation is demonstrative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwyMif5EOg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1P0VtpPW7MLN5dLpjt83cRb0lQBDn5kb-HccyjTGYE1rC0CRgsCRCAUt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwyMif5EOg&feature=youtu.be...
  - _-___________-_ 7y ago
    > 1-Since travel is still occuring out of mainland China, your faith in the virus being limited to the nation of China seems misplaced. I never said it was limited to the nation of China, I said it wasn't widespread outside of China and a cruise ship, which remains true despite significant travel still occurring. Humans are also terrible at intuitively assessing risk, and the current panic is a great example of this.
    - ericb 7y ago
      > Humans are also terrible at intuitively assessing risk Doesn't that also apply to you? Have you looked into when and where testing is performed? In the US, if you don't have a china travel history, they won't test you. This has an incubation period that is still indeterminate, and in the US and other large countries, they are barely testing. So you literally don't have a way to be sure of what you're claiming--there's just no data, but somehow you are very confident in what you claim? Have you read up on the Spanish Flu? Was that just a "panic"? So far, by every measure, this looks to be worse--more transmissible, harder to detect, with a higher mortality rate. The Spanish Flu killed between 1 and 5% of the world's population.
      - _-___________-_ 7y ago
        > Doesn't that also apply to you? Yes indeed, and to you also. But in the same way that one can learn to better appreciate exponential growth, one can learn to better appreciate risk, and try to apply that knowledge rationally rather than basing decisions on fear. > Have you looked into when and where testing is performed? In the US, if you don't have a china travel history, they won't test you. Yes. The most reliable testing procedures are quite invasive and carry at least some exposure risk for the healthcare worker carrying them out, especially if done outside a hospital setting. They also aren't guaranteed to detect the virus in the early stages, or in minor infections. This is one reason why China has moved to include clinical diagnoses as confirmed cases, and it's also why they didn't just test every person on the Yokohama cruise ship straight away. > This has an incubation period that is still indeterminate Not really. There are some pretty good bounds on it, especially with the significant number of cases in Wuhan available as data. I am confident in what I claim (given that what I claim is quite limited). I'm not making predictions here, I'm talking about the current state of things. Beyond that, let's see what happens...
oarsinsync 7y ago
> I'm wondering if the unstated reasoning is that widespread mask usage freaks people out and increases the chance of large scale panic. Different cultures and situations handle this very differently. I'm hearing reports in London that people are being attacked for wearing a mask in public. Meanwhile, if you want to scare everyone around you in Hong Kong, go out without a mask and then cough.

by zxcmx 7y ago

_-___________-_ 7y ago

> At any given time you can't really know if you're infected or not if the virus is widespread. Unless you're in China, the virus is not widespread. I imagine they would change their recommendation if it was. > So why not wear them? Why recommend them for healthcare workers but not the general public? The chance that a healthcare worker who is treating a suspected CoV case is in close contact with an infected patient is close to 100%. On the other hand, the chance that a member of the general public outside of mainland China comes into close contact with someone who is infected, whether they're in the rest of Asia or not, is within a few orders of magnitude of 0.00001%.

zxcmx 7y ago
Yes, totally agree. I wonder what the rational tipping point would be for mask vs no mask.
ericb 7y ago
1-Since travel is still occuring out of mainland China, your faith in the virus being limited to the nation of China seems misplaced. 2-Your estimates of the probability are unlikely shift properly as the landscape of infection changes rapidly, and is not apparent to the naked eye. Humans intuitively do not tend to comprehend exponential/quadratic growth. This video outlines it. The main point is to look how late, in this scenario you'd be saying "no problem" and how quickly it goes from fine, to effed. Note: this is not an endorsement on the other items in this channel, I just think this particular explanation is demonstrative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwyMif5EOg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1P0VtpPW7MLN5dLpjt83cRb0lQBDn5kb-HccyjTGYE1rC0CRgsCRCAUt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwyMif5EOg&feature=youtu.be...
- _-___________-_ 7y ago
  > 1-Since travel is still occuring out of mainland China, your faith in the virus being limited to the nation of China seems misplaced. I never said it was limited to the nation of China, I said it wasn't widespread outside of China and a cruise ship, which remains true despite significant travel still occurring. Humans are also terrible at intuitively assessing risk, and the current panic is a great example of this.
  - ericb 7y ago
    > Humans are also terrible at intuitively assessing risk Doesn't that also apply to you? Have you looked into when and where testing is performed? In the US, if you don't have a china travel history, they won't test you. This has an incubation period that is still indeterminate, and in the US and other large countries, they are barely testing. So you literally don't have a way to be sure of what you're claiming--there's just no data, but somehow you are very confident in what you claim? Have you read up on the Spanish Flu? Was that just a "panic"? So far, by every measure, this looks to be worse--more transmissible, harder to detect, with a higher mortality rate. The Spanish Flu killed between 1 and 5% of the world's population.
    - _-___________-_ 7y ago
      > Doesn't that also apply to you? Yes indeed, and to you also. But in the same way that one can learn to better appreciate exponential growth, one can learn to better appreciate risk, and try to apply that knowledge rationally rather than basing decisions on fear. > Have you looked into when and where testing is performed? In the US, if you don't have a china travel history, they won't test you. Yes. The most reliable testing procedures are quite invasive and carry at least some exposure risk for the healthcare worker carrying them out, especially if done outside a hospital setting. They also aren't guaranteed to detect the virus in the early stages, or in minor infections. This is one reason why China has moved to include clinical diagnoses as confirmed cases, and it's also why they didn't just test every person on the Yokohama cruise ship straight away. > This has an incubation period that is still indeterminate Not really. There are some pretty good bounds on it, especially with the significant number of cases in Wuhan available as data. I am confident in what I claim (given that what I claim is quite limited). I'm not making predictions here, I'm talking about the current state of things. Beyond that, let's see what happens...

oarsinsync 7y ago

> I'm wondering if the unstated reasoning is that widespread mask usage freaks people out and increases the chance of large scale panic. Different cultures and situations handle this very differently. I'm hearing reports in London that people are being attacked for wearing a mask in public. Meanwhile, if you want to scare everyone around you in Hong Kong, go out without a mask and then cough.