8 ms·

Many people are asymptomatic, and not only that, are exposed by others who are asymptomatic. Short of every single human interaction being preceded by a PCR tes

Many people are asymptomatic, and not only that, are exposed by others who are asymptomatic. Short of every single human interaction being preceded by a PCR test, the odds are that he eventually would have been exposed. It is easy to do an at-home nasal swab test when you are infected but before the viral load has gotten to the point of being highly contagious, at which point you think you are negative but really will soon become contagious. "Reasonable precautions" would have to be very rigorous, and I have to imagine it would be easy to cave and relax precautions as loneliness sets in.

0xAFFFF 3y ago
Reasonable precautions here were likely to be proper masking from visitors and adequate air filtering in the room. Not something too hard to expect from people visiting a sick person.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  It's not like those "reasonable precautions" are guaranteed. I know a couple people who were absolutely terrified of getting Covid, such that they always masked with N95s and literally only would meet with people outside, 6 feet apart (probably the only time they were inside was with others at the grocery store, and when stores were enforcing masking) and they still got it.
  - foofie 3y ago
    > (...) and they still got it. I don't see the point of your comment. You're presenting an anecdotal case where someone who took some precautions which are known for not being 100% effective against airborne diseases ended up contracting an airborne disease. It makes as much sense as ranting about wearing seatbelts because you can put together an anecdotal case of someone who got hurt in a car accident in spite of wearing one. What's the point of that sort of argument, really?
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      The point is that even with reasonable precautions, it is (and was) possible for the man in the iron lung to be exposed to COVID. The actual precautions necessary to protect him from any exposure at all would have been significantly more stringent than what people tend to believe are reasonable, as GPs anecdote demonstrates.
      - KerrAvon 3y ago
        The problem here is what people believe are reasonable and what is actually reasonable are pretty far apart. COVID will cripple you for the rest of your life if you're unlucky. Chance of that happening increases greatly with each infection. It is not the flu! It's not a cold! Certainly in any medical context, *everyone* should be wearing N95s (at minimum). This should in particular not be optional for anyone calling themselves a medical professional or working in a medical office. This should not be controversial; it's basic preventative care. For particularly sensitive people like this gentleman was, more substantial protection should be employed. Facemasks. Superior air recirculation.
  - mrob 3y ago
    >masked with N95s I see this as an example of confusion between population-level and individual protection. Widespread use of N95s is great at keeping the hospitals from overcrowding, but if somebody is serious about personally avoiding COVID, 95% percent filtration seems rather low (and there's leakage around the sides too.) If they were truly serious about avoiding COVID, they'd use an elastomeric half-face respirator at the minimum (which has the bonus feature of being more comfortable to wear).
    - TylerE 3y ago
      The N95 guarantees a minimum of 95% filtration at the worst possible particle size, which airborne virus particles are not. The 3M 9210s I’ve been wearing since 2021 have been independelty tested as having >99.5% filtration efficiency at the relevant particle size, and that’s with physical testing so stuff like ability of the make to seal is also being tested. Zero COVID infections here.
      - t0bia_s 3y ago
        Potential Applications Include: Bagging, grinding, sanding, sawing, sweeping, woodworking and other dusty applications. source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particulate-respirator-9210-and-9211-n95.pdf https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particul... No words about viruses. Also, I recommend you to make IgG test for covid antibodies. Most likely you already have some.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        How are you managing to read "Potential Applications Include" as "The following is an exhaustive list of all possible applications"?
        TylerE 3y ago
        They would never list healthcare on the general purpose version anyway, since there is a separate specific certification for that. The only difference is better fluid protection, which is irrelevant to the given threat model. They do indeed sell that. https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ And whatta ya know... "This healthcare N95 particulate respirator and surgical mask has comfortable inner materials and helps provide respiratory protection against certain airborne biological particles. The individually packaged, flat-fold design allows for convenient storage prior to use. Fluid-resistant surgical masks help reduce your exposure to blood and body fluids. Cleared for sale by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." Notice it's still "just" an N95.
- TheBlight 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TylerE 3y ago
    The science on this is not controversial. Masks work. Denying that only shows you have fallen for the soundbites and not read the actual studies. For one thing, most of the ones usually cited are testing, with loose controls, surgical style masks for the flu, which has both a different particle size and far lower infectivity than Covid.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
cameldrv 3y ago
You can get home tests that are similar to PCR. They are more expensive but the performance of the antigen tests since about 2022 is so bad that they’re almost useless.
- jMyles 3y ago
  When you say, "so bad", you mean in terms of sensitivity? They seem to be sufficiently selective, but under-sensitive. So, not great for risk aversion.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    Yes sensitivity. False positives are fairly rare.
    - jMyles 3y ago
      Yeah, seems so. So the tests are good as confirmatory devices. But yeah, it was extremely unserious when they were used to gatekeep public events, etc. The reasonable presumption has always been that transmission of respiratory pathogens will occur at public events (which is a strength: humans are quite good at quickly acquiring community immunity - it's one of the reasons our species is so incredibly robust against respiratory pathogens).
      - cameldrv 3y ago
        That is a point of view. In terms of gatekeeping public events, requiring a negative test certainly is going to reduce the number of people who show up with covid, but with only antigen tests, you're reducing the risk maybe 50-60% or so. If you're going to require people to do something annoying, it would be a lot better if the risk reduction were more than that. When you say "humans are good at quickly acquiring community immunity", I don't really think we've done that with Covid. Covid is still over 2% of all deaths in the U.S., and it's causing way more disability and injury. We won't truly know what it's done to us for years.

0xAFFFF 3y ago

Reasonable precautions here were likely to be proper masking from visitors and adequate air filtering in the room. Not something too hard to expect from people visiting a sick person.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
It's not like those "reasonable precautions" are guaranteed. I know a couple people who were absolutely terrified of getting Covid, such that they always masked with N95s and literally only would meet with people outside, 6 feet apart (probably the only time they were inside was with others at the grocery store, and when stores were enforcing masking) and they still got it.
- foofie 3y ago
  > (...) and they still got it. I don't see the point of your comment. You're presenting an anecdotal case where someone who took some precautions which are known for not being 100% effective against airborne diseases ended up contracting an airborne disease. It makes as much sense as ranting about wearing seatbelts because you can put together an anecdotal case of someone who got hurt in a car accident in spite of wearing one. What's the point of that sort of argument, really?
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    The point is that even with reasonable precautions, it is (and was) possible for the man in the iron lung to be exposed to COVID. The actual precautions necessary to protect him from any exposure at all would have been significantly more stringent than what people tend to believe are reasonable, as GPs anecdote demonstrates.
    - KerrAvon 3y ago
      The problem here is what people believe are reasonable and what is actually reasonable are pretty far apart. COVID will cripple you for the rest of your life if you're unlucky. Chance of that happening increases greatly with each infection. It is not the flu! It's not a cold! Certainly in any medical context, *everyone* should be wearing N95s (at minimum). This should in particular not be optional for anyone calling themselves a medical professional or working in a medical office. This should not be controversial; it's basic preventative care. For particularly sensitive people like this gentleman was, more substantial protection should be employed. Facemasks. Superior air recirculation.
- mrob 3y ago
  >masked with N95s I see this as an example of confusion between population-level and individual protection. Widespread use of N95s is great at keeping the hospitals from overcrowding, but if somebody is serious about personally avoiding COVID, 95% percent filtration seems rather low (and there's leakage around the sides too.) If they were truly serious about avoiding COVID, they'd use an elastomeric half-face respirator at the minimum (which has the bonus feature of being more comfortable to wear).
  - TylerE 3y ago
    The N95 guarantees a minimum of 95% filtration at the worst possible particle size, which airborne virus particles are not. The 3M 9210s I’ve been wearing since 2021 have been independelty tested as having >99.5% filtration efficiency at the relevant particle size, and that’s with physical testing so stuff like ability of the make to seal is also being tested. Zero COVID infections here.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      Potential Applications Include: Bagging, grinding, sanding, sawing, sweeping, woodworking and other dusty applications. source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particulate-respirator-9210-and-9211-n95.pdf https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/813534O/3m-aura-particul... No words about viruses. Also, I recommend you to make IgG test for covid antibodies. Most likely you already have some.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        How are you managing to read "Potential Applications Include" as "The following is an exhaustive list of all possible applications"?
        TylerE 3y ago
        They would never list healthcare on the general purpose version anyway, since there is a separate specific certification for that. The only difference is better fluid protection, which is irrelevant to the given threat model. They do indeed sell that. https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101143973/ And whatta ya know... "This healthcare N95 particulate respirator and surgical mask has comfortable inner materials and helps provide respiratory protection against certain airborne biological particles. The individually packaged, flat-fold design allows for convenient storage prior to use. Fluid-resistant surgical masks help reduce your exposure to blood and body fluids. Cleared for sale by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." Notice it's still "just" an N95.
TheBlight 3y ago
[flagged]
- TylerE 3y ago
  The science on this is not controversial. Masks work. Denying that only shows you have fallen for the soundbites and not read the actual studies. For one thing, most of the ones usually cited are testing, with loose controls, surgical style masks for the flu, which has both a different particle size and far lower infectivity than Covid.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

cameldrv 3y ago

You can get home tests that are similar to PCR. They are more expensive but the performance of the antigen tests since about 2022 is so bad that they’re almost useless.

jMyles 3y ago
When you say, "so bad", you mean in terms of sensitivity? They seem to be sufficiently selective, but under-sensitive. So, not great for risk aversion.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  Yes sensitivity. False positives are fairly rare.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    Yeah, seems so. So the tests are good as confirmatory devices. But yeah, it was extremely unserious when they were used to gatekeep public events, etc. The reasonable presumption has always been that transmission of respiratory pathogens will occur at public events (which is a strength: humans are quite good at quickly acquiring community immunity - it's one of the reasons our species is so incredibly robust against respiratory pathogens).
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      That is a point of view. In terms of gatekeeping public events, requiring a negative test certainly is going to reduce the number of people who show up with covid, but with only antigen tests, you're reducing the risk maybe 50-60% or so. If you're going to require people to do something annoying, it would be a lot better if the risk reduction were more than that. When you say "humans are good at quickly acquiring community immunity", I don't really think we've done that with Covid. Covid is still over 2% of all deaths in the U.S., and it's causing way more disability and injury. We won't truly know what it's done to us for years.