5 ms·

Even poorly fitted cloth masks or a bandana will do a little bit for source control. That's useful to help contain spread, we just need to push the exponent on

Even poorly fitted cloth masks or a bandana will do a little bit for source control. That's useful to help contain spread, we just need to push the exponent on infection growth below 1.0. COVID's vicious feature is not that it's extraordinarily dangerous on a per-case basis, it's that it spreads so easily and even in people without symptoms. Clearly it would be better if everyone wore N95 quality masks, and that's the level you need to really protect yourself, but if nearly everyone got vaccinated and wore even a mediocre mask we could starve the pandemic out in a month or two.

nradov 5y ago
That's not scientifically correct. Because the vaccines are not fully sterilizing and there are multiple animal host species the virus will never be eradicated regardless of what we do. It's now endemic. You can't expect people to wear masks indefinitely.
- hedgehog 5y ago
  Ending the pandemic is different from eradicating the virus. It'll likely end up being something we manage just as we manage viruses like measles or Ebola. Vaccination and surveillance will slow the sporadic smaller outbreaks and make it feasible to contain them.
  - nradov 5y ago
    There's no scientific reason to expect that outbreaks of a highly infectious respiratory virus can be contained by measures short of the drastic lockdowns used in authoritarian countries like China and Australia. Most people in most countries won't go along with that, and in many countries the governments don't even have the resources to even try. A more realistic scenario is that we all get infected eventually but vaccines keep the death toll low.
    - hedgehog 5y ago
      I hope you're wrong but unclear. Best I can tell it's likely populations with near-100% vaccination rates and reasonable public health teams will be protected from large outbreaks. That strategy has worked for measles, we'll see what happens on this one.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Measles isn't a valid comparison for a control strategy. It isn't commonly spread by asymptomatic patients. There are no animal reservoirs. The measles vaccine is far more effective at really blocking infections rather than just preventing severe symptoms. So your hopes are unfounded.

nradov 5y ago

That's not scientifically correct. Because the vaccines are not fully sterilizing and there are multiple animal host species the virus will never be eradicated regardless of what we do. It's now endemic. You can't expect people to wear masks indefinitely.

hedgehog 5y ago
Ending the pandemic is different from eradicating the virus. It'll likely end up being something we manage just as we manage viruses like measles or Ebola. Vaccination and surveillance will slow the sporadic smaller outbreaks and make it feasible to contain them.
- nradov 5y ago
  There's no scientific reason to expect that outbreaks of a highly infectious respiratory virus can be contained by measures short of the drastic lockdowns used in authoritarian countries like China and Australia. Most people in most countries won't go along with that, and in many countries the governments don't even have the resources to even try. A more realistic scenario is that we all get infected eventually but vaccines keep the death toll low.
  - hedgehog 5y ago
    I hope you're wrong but unclear. Best I can tell it's likely populations with near-100% vaccination rates and reasonable public health teams will be protected from large outbreaks. That strategy has worked for measles, we'll see what happens on this one.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Measles isn't a valid comparison for a control strategy. It isn't commonly spread by asymptomatic patients. There are no animal reservoirs. The measles vaccine is far more effective at really blocking infections rather than just preventing severe symptoms. So your hopes are unfounded.