4 ms·

That the CDC didn’t update guidelines that the virus was spread in the air until October seems near criminal - how much political pressure was on them to say “i

That the CDC didn’t update guidelines that the virus was spread in the air until October seems near criminal - how much political pressure was on them to say “it’ll all go away soon”, as was stated by political leadership over and over?

graeme 6y ago
Unfortunately the CDC is doing better than most OECD health authorities that I know of. Canada still hasn’t updated its guidance to my knowledge. I haven’t checked Europe in a bit, maybe they updated. But judging from their poor showing presently, I doubt it. There were lots of problems in the US response, but it was far from uniquely bad. And aerosol resistance was ingrained across western health authorities, it didn’t come from the president.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Saying "Europe" in this context is like saying "America" (the continent, not the US). You won't get a useable picture putting Norway, Italy and Russia[1] in the same basket just like you won't with the USA, Peru and Brazil. 1: Did you mean the EU? EU != Europe. Russia is 40% of Europe's area and 15% of its population. European Russians are 80% of Russia's population.
Fomite 6y ago
One note here is that "aerosol" =/= "spread through the air". The debate was not over whether or not the virus was spread through the air, but whether or not it was spread via droplets (relatively "large" particles that spread through the air, but will settle relatively quickly onto surfaces) or aerosols (relatively small particles that are likely to linger for longer). The evidence for aerosol transmission outside of specific medical procedures (the aptly named "aerosol generating procedures") wasn't nearly as overwhelming, and most epidemiologists I know were more than willing to characterize the transmission of COVID-19 as likely being on a continuum (documents I wrote were discussing this in early May).
- taurath 6y ago
  That’s a good distinction, but I’m not sure how that jives with telling the public not to wear masks, if they knew it was airborne.
  - Fomite 6y ago
    Essentially, early in the epidemic, that was fueled by two things: 1) Previous studies for flu have shown that masks have very little effect. 2) There was concern about fomite transmission, and for good reason - both from previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS) and because of the initial settings (hospitals and the cruise ship). Donning and doffing contaminated PPE is a skill, and an actually fairly difficult one. The combination of the two led to the active concern that the reduction in transmission due to mask wearing might very well be offset by people self-inoculating via their mouth or eyes. The shift in thinking came about via two mechanisms as well: 1) The fomite transmission thing appeared to be less of a big deal than initial studies indicated. 2) Previous studies had looked at protecting people by wearing masks. The newer paradigm for masks is primarily focused on reducing the amount of virus asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals are putting into the environment via droplets or aerosols. Hence things like "My mask protects you, your mask protects me."
    - taurath 6y ago
      For point 1 above and point 2 below: to my knowledge this was widely already known by the medical community, and is widely used throughout asia to protect others against any cough or airborne diseases. Did the previous studies for flu only take into consideration the protecting value for the individual wearing it? How does the wearing of masks during the spanish flu fit into that? Was that not effective then? I guess its hard to say. It seems, well, obvious in hindsight surely, but you'd think that something this obvious in hindsight would be figured out by experts beforehand. Telling people actively to not wear masks seems like they not only missed the shot but were actively harmful.

graeme 6y ago

Unfortunately the CDC is doing better than most OECD health authorities that I know of. Canada still hasn’t updated its guidance to my knowledge. I haven’t checked Europe in a bit, maybe they updated. But judging from their poor showing presently, I doubt it. There were lots of problems in the US response, but it was far from uniquely bad. And aerosol resistance was ingrained across western health authorities, it didn’t come from the president.

Daho0n 6y ago
Saying "Europe" in this context is like saying "America" (the continent, not the US). You won't get a useable picture putting Norway, Italy and Russia[1] in the same basket just like you won't with the USA, Peru and Brazil. 1: Did you mean the EU? EU != Europe. Russia is 40% of Europe's area and 15% of its population. European Russians are 80% of Russia's population.

Fomite 6y ago

One note here is that "aerosol" =/= "spread through the air". The debate was not over whether or not the virus was spread through the air, but whether or not it was spread via droplets (relatively "large" particles that spread through the air, but will settle relatively quickly onto surfaces) or aerosols (relatively small particles that are likely to linger for longer). The evidence for aerosol transmission outside of specific medical procedures (the aptly named "aerosol generating procedures") wasn't nearly as overwhelming, and most epidemiologists I know were more than willing to characterize the transmission of COVID-19 as likely being on a continuum (documents I wrote were discussing this in early May).

taurath 6y ago
That’s a good distinction, but I’m not sure how that jives with telling the public not to wear masks, if they knew it was airborne.
- Fomite 6y ago
  Essentially, early in the epidemic, that was fueled by two things: 1) Previous studies for flu have shown that masks have very little effect. 2) There was concern about fomite transmission, and for good reason - both from previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS) and because of the initial settings (hospitals and the cruise ship). Donning and doffing contaminated PPE is a skill, and an actually fairly difficult one. The combination of the two led to the active concern that the reduction in transmission due to mask wearing might very well be offset by people self-inoculating via their mouth or eyes. The shift in thinking came about via two mechanisms as well: 1) The fomite transmission thing appeared to be less of a big deal than initial studies indicated. 2) Previous studies had looked at protecting people by wearing masks. The newer paradigm for masks is primarily focused on reducing the amount of virus asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals are putting into the environment via droplets or aerosols. Hence things like "My mask protects you, your mask protects me."
  - taurath 6y ago
    For point 1 above and point 2 below: to my knowledge this was widely already known by the medical community, and is widely used throughout asia to protect others against any cough or airborne diseases. Did the previous studies for flu only take into consideration the protecting value for the individual wearing it? How does the wearing of masks during the spanish flu fit into that? Was that not effective then? I guess its hard to say. It seems, well, obvious in hindsight surely, but you'd think that something this obvious in hindsight would be figured out by experts beforehand. Telling people actively to not wear masks seems like they not only missed the shot but were actively harmful.