5 ms·

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 r

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.

matz1 6y ago
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
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  It’s not at all obvious and you are simply wrong on this point.
  - matz1 6y ago
    How is it wrong?
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
      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.
      - matz1 6y ago
        I said for me its obvious that the downside from the extras measure is greater than the downside from the virus itself. I didn't say/imply its obvious for you or any other people. Its a subjective comparison.
- Larrikin 6y ago
  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.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Yes, if you don't have better massure then nothing be done would be better. >seems about as tiny an inconvenience as possible. maybe tiny for for you but definitely not tiny for me There is no conclusive evidence that the death is correlated with temperature check/ mask. Maybe the n95 mask can reduce spread but the clothes mask that most people use doesn't do much. I know it spread and it spread easily but fortunately for vast majority of case they will be asymptomatic or only have symptoms.
    - Larrikin 6y ago
      None of what you believe is based on scientific evidence.
      - matz1 6y ago
        how is it not ?
        nucleardog 6y ago
        > There is no conclusive evidence that the death is correlated with temperature check/ mask. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Associati... "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. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 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. https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleid=29806&publicId=395 https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta... 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.
Someone1234 6y ago
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.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Seems like those goalposts have been moved then… 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.
  - nucleardog 6y ago
    > 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: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iere.12402 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iere.12402 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/260352 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/260352 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457514003807?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004727271730052X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-009-9548-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-009-9548-2
  - lamontcg 6y ago
    > my behaviour 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.

matz1 6y ago

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

matthewmacleod 6y ago
It’s not at all obvious and you are simply wrong on this point.
- matz1 6y ago
  How is it wrong?
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    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.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I said for me its obvious that the downside from the extras measure is greater than the downside from the virus itself. I didn't say/imply its obvious for you or any other people. Its a subjective comparison.
Larrikin 6y ago
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.
- matz1 6y ago
  Yes, if you don't have better massure then nothing be done would be better. >seems about as tiny an inconvenience as possible. maybe tiny for for you but definitely not tiny for me There is no conclusive evidence that the death is correlated with temperature check/ mask. Maybe the n95 mask can reduce spread but the clothes mask that most people use doesn't do much. I know it spread and it spread easily but fortunately for vast majority of case they will be asymptomatic or only have symptoms.
  - Larrikin 6y ago
    None of what you believe is based on scientific evidence.
    - matz1 6y ago
      how is it not ?
      - nucleardog 6y ago
        > There is no conclusive evidence that the death is correlated with temperature check/ mask. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Associati... "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. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 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. https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleid=29806&publicId=395 https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta... 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.

Someone1234 6y ago

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.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Seems like those goalposts have been moved then… 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.
- nucleardog 6y ago
  > 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: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iere.12402 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iere.12402 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/260352 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/260352 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457514003807?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004727271730052X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-009-9548-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-009-9548-2
- lamontcg 6y ago
  > my behaviour 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.