7 ms·

> Germany is about to get rid of wearing masks in stores. That's like turning off the firewall because the attack is over. It's preventive, so you need to wear

by mcntsh 6y ago

> Germany is about to get rid of wearing masks in stores. That's like turning off the firewall because the attack is over. It's preventive, so you need to wear a mask before sth happens. There were 140 new cases in Germany yesterday in a country of 83 million. In my city of 3,5 million there were 17 new cases. At what point would you say it's safe to not wear a mask in stores?

uwuwuwu 6y ago
As long as there is a very volatile equilibrium, I'd wish we play safe -- because there is absolutely no cost associated with wearing masks. We've seen that local outbreaks happen, and that local authorities hesitate to take action.
ulfw 6y ago
When it's been ZERO for a while. Obviously? I don't understand this question at all. As long a there's >=1 case and little immunity the virus WILL spread.
- mcntsh 6y ago
  Wasn't it the goal all along to flatten the curve and gradually introduce herd immunity while softening the impact on hospitals? No one estimates a vaccine any time remotely soon and even with one it would take years at best to achieve zero cases globally.
  - uwuwuwu 6y ago
    The issue with herd immunity are the unknown long term risks. Just imagine this stuff wrecks your immune system a couple of months after infection. Or, that immunity goes away after some months. There's no guarantee that herd immunity helps. On the other hand, we could be working all hands on deck to arrange our lifestyle AND protect from infection.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Wasn't it the goal all along to flatten the curve and gradually introduce herd immunity while softening the impact on hospitals? No, suppression was the goal. At least, the study that turned the tide on policy concluded that targeting suppression was essential.
  - kadoban 6y ago
    Flattening the curve was the most immediate and important goal, because overloaded hospitals kill a _lot_ of people. Herd immunity by everyone getting infected should _not_ be a goal. That's still going to kill many, many people. The estimate for the US by that route was around 2.5million dead. You could probably scale that by population size and maybe reduce a bit as we get better at treatment for this disease, but that's still a big number. I don't think we have much option other than to prevent the spread as much as we can while waiting for something like a vaccine and/or far better treatments than we currently have. Zero cases globally will indeed be a while, if it ever happens.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > Herd immunity by everyone getting infected should _not_ be a goal. Hope is not a strategy. You have presented no way to do testing and tracing in the US.
- anthonypasq 6y ago
  this is literally impossible and completely ridiculous
  - ulfw 6y ago
    and yet it worked in Taiwan, in Vietnam, in Japan, in New Zealand... ridiculous huh

by mcntsh 6y ago

uwuwuwu 6y ago

As long as there is a very volatile equilibrium, I'd wish we play safe -- because there is absolutely no cost associated with wearing masks. We've seen that local outbreaks happen, and that local authorities hesitate to take action.

ulfw 6y ago

When it's been ZERO for a while. Obviously? I don't understand this question at all. As long a there's >=1 case and little immunity the virus WILL spread.

mcntsh 6y ago
Wasn't it the goal all along to flatten the curve and gradually introduce herd immunity while softening the impact on hospitals? No one estimates a vaccine any time remotely soon and even with one it would take years at best to achieve zero cases globally.
- uwuwuwu 6y ago
  The issue with herd immunity are the unknown long term risks. Just imagine this stuff wrecks your immune system a couple of months after infection. Or, that immunity goes away after some months. There's no guarantee that herd immunity helps. On the other hand, we could be working all hands on deck to arrange our lifestyle AND protect from infection.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Wasn't it the goal all along to flatten the curve and gradually introduce herd immunity while softening the impact on hospitals? No, suppression was the goal. At least, the study that turned the tide on policy concluded that targeting suppression was essential.
- kadoban 6y ago
  Flattening the curve was the most immediate and important goal, because overloaded hospitals kill a _lot_ of people. Herd immunity by everyone getting infected should _not_ be a goal. That's still going to kill many, many people. The estimate for the US by that route was around 2.5million dead. You could probably scale that by population size and maybe reduce a bit as we get better at treatment for this disease, but that's still a big number. I don't think we have much option other than to prevent the spread as much as we can while waiting for something like a vaccine and/or far better treatments than we currently have. Zero cases globally will indeed be a while, if it ever happens.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > Herd immunity by everyone getting infected should _not_ be a goal. Hope is not a strategy. You have presented no way to do testing and tracing in the US.
anthonypasq 6y ago
this is literally impossible and completely ridiculous
- ulfw 6y ago
  and yet it worked in Taiwan, in Vietnam, in Japan, in New Zealand... ridiculous huh