9 ms·

Yeah, I think the article missed the point on this one - travel bans aren't a panacea, but they definitely slow the spread and can buy valuable time at the star

Yeah, I think the article missed the point on this one - travel bans aren't a panacea, but they definitely slow the spread and can buy valuable time at the start of an outbreak. There's been too much binary thinking by the media and politicians - for example masks aren't 100% effective, but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% which could be the difference between getting mildly sick and getting a fatal exposure. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better.

titzer 5y ago
> but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% I think the effect is much larger than that, but yes, absolutely. This is an important point that is constantly lost in the public discourse. We realize there's a big difference in dosage with poisons and radiation, but it's the same with viral infections; viruses do take time to replicate, so having a low initial exposure can give the immune system to ramp up sooner, before the infection has become severe (and then the immune response will also be severe).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ahdh8f4hf4h8 5y ago
  Theoretically masks would be much more effective than this - I think the 30-50% number came from a study where they looked at actual non-professional usage of masks. Most people have bad mask hygiene, so there is substantial air leaking around the nose or chin. Many of the makeshift masks people used are insufficient to capture viruses, but they do greatly reduce the "blast radius" of your breathing and coughs.
- timr 5y ago
  All current evidence is that masks have a minor effect, measured in tiny fractions of a percent. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk... To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    The recent Bangladesh study with 350k people found a ~10% reduction in cases, from only 40% mask adoption. The two-cities trial early in 2020 in Germany saw a ~20% reduction. Those are in the number of infections - the number looks low but can make a massive difference in the actual transmission rate. In the German case, after a month infections dropped close to zero.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - midasuni 5y ago
      Cases in Scotland with mask laws and Hugh adherence seem higher than in England which doesn’t have laws and has low adherence. Be interesting if anyone has done a proper comparison between say Glasgow and Manchester.
      - ricardobeat 5y ago
        I think I’ve heard that before, but how is it higher? From the usual dashboards Scotland has 130 cases per million, while England is at 150/million. The number of cases right now is also stable while the UK overall is going up?
        ed_balls 5y ago
        it's hard to compare cases without knowing how many tests were done and how they are administered.
        ralusek 5y ago
        And where in a particular wave a given place is. And what the seroprevalence and other demographic factors are between the two populations.
        midasuni 5y ago
        I last checked a couple of weeks ago when Scotland was on 370/100k and England on 350/100k, seemed to have flipped back the other way now
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  If both parties are wearing proper masks then it is 90-95% particle blocking and limiting of viral loads
xwdv 5y ago
Masks are 100% effective at inconveniencing people’s lives and building a false sense of security.
- fredophile 5y ago
  I could say the same thing about pants but I still have to wear them in public.
  - jwlake 5y ago
    You might be wearing pants wrong.
    - fredophile 5y ago
      I wear them like I wear my mask, low and only covering half of what they should.
nuclearnice1 5y ago
Are they useful at the start of a new variant? For example if we assume it gets to the US eventually, what is, say, an extra few weeks buying the US? On day 1 or in year 1, I see the value in those weeks. You can build ventilators, field hospitals, and learn treatments. At this point, are there new useful ways to use a few weeks of lead time?
jjtheblunt 5y ago
> We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better. well said, in my opinion

titzer 5y ago

> but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% I think the effect is much larger than that, but yes, absolutely. This is an important point that is constantly lost in the public discourse. We realize there's a big difference in dosage with poisons and radiation, but it's the same with viral infections; viruses do take time to replicate, so having a low initial exposure can give the immune system to ramp up sooner, before the infection has become severe (and then the immune response will also be severe).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ahdh8f4hf4h8 5y ago
Theoretically masks would be much more effective than this - I think the 30-50% number came from a study where they looked at actual non-professional usage of masks. Most people have bad mask hygiene, so there is substantial air leaking around the nose or chin. Many of the makeshift masks people used are insufficient to capture viruses, but they do greatly reduce the "blast radius" of your breathing and coughs.
timr 5y ago
All current evidence is that masks have a minor effect, measured in tiny fractions of a percent. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk... To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  The recent Bangladesh study with 350k people found a ~10% reduction in cases, from only 40% mask adoption. The two-cities trial early in 2020 in Germany saw a ~20% reduction. Those are in the number of infections - the number looks low but can make a massive difference in the actual transmission rate. In the German case, after a month infections dropped close to zero.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - midasuni 5y ago
    Cases in Scotland with mask laws and Hugh adherence seem higher than in England which doesn’t have laws and has low adherence. Be interesting if anyone has done a proper comparison between say Glasgow and Manchester.
    - ricardobeat 5y ago
      I think I’ve heard that before, but how is it higher? From the usual dashboards Scotland has 130 cases per million, while England is at 150/million. The number of cases right now is also stable while the UK overall is going up?
      - ed_balls 5y ago
        it's hard to compare cases without knowing how many tests were done and how they are administered.
        ralusek 5y ago
        And where in a particular wave a given place is. And what the seroprevalence and other demographic factors are between the two populations.
      - midasuni 5y ago
        I last checked a couple of weeks ago when Scotland was on 370/100k and England on 350/100k, seemed to have flipped back the other way now
stjohnswarts 5y ago
If both parties are wearing proper masks then it is 90-95% particle blocking and limiting of viral loads

xwdv 5y ago

Masks are 100% effective at inconveniencing people’s lives and building a false sense of security.

fredophile 5y ago
I could say the same thing about pants but I still have to wear them in public.
- jwlake 5y ago
  You might be wearing pants wrong.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    I wear them like I wear my mask, low and only covering half of what they should.

nuclearnice1 5y ago

Are they useful at the start of a new variant? For example if we assume it gets to the US eventually, what is, say, an extra few weeks buying the US? On day 1 or in year 1, I see the value in those weeks. You can build ventilators, field hospitals, and learn treatments. At this point, are there new useful ways to use a few weeks of lead time?

jjtheblunt 5y ago

> We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better. well said, in my opinion