4 ms·

The studies & data on "health checks" -- temperature checks, symptom screening, etc -- thus far shows that it is generally considered to not be very effective.

The studies & data on "health checks" -- temperature checks, symptom screening, etc -- thus far shows that it is generally considered to not be very effective. Here are 3 studies I found quickly, but this line from [2] sums it up nicely: "... screening is resource intensive and its effectiveness is limited due to a high proportion of asymptomatic or pre‐symptomatic cases, resulting in low detection rates." [0] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014668/ [1] - https://elifesciences.org/articles/55570 https://elifesciences.org/articles/55570 (includes bonus GH repo w/ data and methodology) [2] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2192 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2192

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Limited effectiveness is not the same as ineffective. Cloth masks are less effective than n95 which are less effective than paprs. So I should not wear any mask unless I can get a papr because they're not as effective?
- adanto6840 6y ago
  I don't disagree, though it does come down to cost-benefit. Masks are a no-brainer IMO; they're cheap & data generally leans towards them having some level of efficacy even at the lowest ends of the cost-spectrum (ie cloth coverings), and they appear to have rapidly-increasing efficacy as the cost-spectrum value rises (ie N95+, respirators, etc). I should have included the last sentence from that paragraph in the study, because it's pretty concise: "Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the cost‐benefit of implementing such measures." IMO it'd be impossible & fruitless to attempt to get even moderate numbers of businesses to do health & temperature screening, much less small businesses; it's just cost-prohibitive, and with the benefit being mediocre at best, there are likely better places to allocate resources.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago

Limited effectiveness is not the same as ineffective. Cloth masks are less effective than n95 which are less effective than paprs. So I should not wear any mask unless I can get a papr because they're not as effective?

adanto6840 6y ago
I don't disagree, though it does come down to cost-benefit. Masks are a no-brainer IMO; they're cheap & data generally leans towards them having some level of efficacy even at the lowest ends of the cost-spectrum (ie cloth coverings), and they appear to have rapidly-increasing efficacy as the cost-spectrum value rises (ie N95+, respirators, etc). I should have included the last sentence from that paragraph in the study, because it's pretty concise: "Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the cost‐benefit of implementing such measures." IMO it'd be impossible & fruitless to attempt to get even moderate numbers of businesses to do health & temperature screening, much less small businesses; it's just cost-prohibitive, and with the benefit being mediocre at best, there are likely better places to allocate resources.