Texas medical masks manufacturer is caught in coronavirus’s supply chain panic
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Nobody wants to hold inventory because that represents "wasted money". So, when you need inventory, everybody is screwed.
This is just like the banking crisis of 2008. There is no point in being the Cassandra. If you're right, everybody is screwed. If your wrong, you personally lose.
Better to just bank your money and try to bail out as soon as possible.
On parts inventory, I'm probably quite a bit more in agreement. Holding inventory is risky, but spectacularly useful when there are disruptions.
Critical industries need to be domestic because otherwise the country is left vulnerable in a crisis.
It doesn't have to be all immoral, but some companies will be.
I generally invest in exchange listed companies. When I invest, I'm buying from someone else, not from the company. They already got paid when they floated. They're not seeing a dime through exchange trade unless they make more shares available, diluting everyone else's investment in the process.
So when I invest, someone else gets paid. They may get paid or less than they paid when they bought, but they're getting paid. Not the company I invested in.
Then if price-gouging laws prevent you from charging more during an emergency you won't make your money back.
The government bailed out car companies and other than jobs, it also means that in a WW scenario, the GM and Ford factories will make tanks instead of cars. Some things re essential.
Through laws?
USA has a strategic reserve of oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(U...
I really don't see how masks, or other emergency equipment, changes things. Stockpiling stuff for emergencies seems to be the thing that governments should do.
The proposal is for USG to buy a bunch of masks and sell them halfway through their useful life. Absolutely no one, other than you, is interpreting this as a requirement that fresh masks cannot be sold under penalty of law.
That's a bizarre and tortured interpretation of what's being discussed here.
The government simply deciding to buy a lot of masks, then sell them as surplus half way through their shelf life, is just a matter of requisitioning funds.
I hope the government is doing stuff like that. I don't plan as if they do, but I hope they do. What's the good of being in a first-world country if the government can't even plan that far ahead?
So for them, the question is whether they go through masks fast enough that selling them halfway through their sell-by span is practical.
The answer is almost certainly yes, although larger hospitals should maintain their own stockpile. The obvious answer: have major hospitals be holding centers for the US strategic mask reserve.
For consumers, there's no reason not to sell a few masks fresh off the line. These goals aren't in conflict.
Is it because masks get more attention and there’s a large overlap between narcissists and people scared of the zombie apocalypse?
I’m kidding about that, but it’s really odd how easily people seem to flock without attempting any deeper analysis.
Hand washing seems like it would serve the same purpose and more effectively (I believe to properly sanitize the cotton gloves, you’d have to bleach them, and how do they protect you anyway? Viruses can’t get through your skin unless you have an cut).
The masks have been shown to be effective in reducing the spread of disease. It’s essentially “cough/sneeze into your elbow” but much more effective.
I've been to mainland China, Taiwan, HK, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand in the last four weeks. China has close to 100% usage of masks in public, mostly the surgical type. The virus is spreading like wildfire there. Every other country I've visited has markedly less mask usage, in particular Vietnam where at least in the south, it's relatively rare to see people wearing them.
Yet in all the other countries it's hardly spreading (obviously I'm excluding the cruise ship off the coast of Japan here, which appears to be a special case).
It does however provide a data point that masks are likely not very effective at preventing the spread of the virus.
So maybe you're right. But maybe it would have broken out 100x worse by now.
"...there's no evidence inexpensive surgical masks can protect against flu virus particles small enough to be inhaled into the lower respiratory tract or the lungs"
http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/health/do-face-masks-help...
https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/governance-and-committees/as...
It's worth also noting that this refers to healthcare workers. The considerations are totally different here, because the likelihood that they'll come into close contact with an infected person is pretty close to 100%. The likelihood that a member of the public will in most Asian countries with 20 or so cases and a few tens of million people is more like 0.00001% give or take a couple of orders of magnitude.
"Most often, spread from person-to-person happens among close contacts (about 6 feet). Person-to-person spread is thought to occur mainly via respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes, similar to how influenza and other respiratory pathogens spread."
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/EPO/Pages/Wildfire%20Pages/...
"An N95 respirator is particularly effective against aerosolized droplets that are invisible to the naked eye."
That's not a plausible route of transmission. The virus would be embedded in a much larger particle of human mucus, and an N95 mask will do a fine job of filtering that out.
A very common misconception is that HEPA filters only filter particles larger than 0.3 microns. In fact there's multiple different filtration mechanisms at play, with interception and impaction working better for larger particles, and diffusion being more effective for smaller particles. HEPA filters are rated for their effectiveness at 0.3 microns because that size is the size where the combination of mechanisms operate worst: smaller and larger particles are filtered even more effectively.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3692-face-masks-are-b... [2] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/744899/facemasks-hand-hyg...
CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear [a] facemask to protect themselves from respiratory viruses, including 2019-nCoV. - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-t...
Now, I'm not one to blindly trust a government agency, but most of the evidence seems inconclusive at this point, and one thing can't be ignored: in mainland China, use of masks in public spaces is near 100%, yet the virus is spreading rapidly. Outside mainland China, far fewer people are wearing masks, yet the virus is not spreading much at all.
Sure, it's not likely to decrease your direct infection risk.
But it does decrease the risk of you infecting others.
At any given time you can't really know if you're infected or not if the virus is widespread.
Also the mask would presumably be more effective than coughing into your elbow or a tissue, which they do recommend.
So why not wear them? Why recommend them for healthcare workers but not the general public?
I'm wondering if the unstated reasoning is that widespread mask usage freaks people out and increases the chance of large scale panic.
Unless you're in China, the virus is not widespread. I imagine they would change their recommendation if it was.
> So why not wear them? Why recommend them for healthcare workers but not the general public?
The chance that a healthcare worker who is treating a suspected CoV case is in close contact with an infected patient is close to 100%. On the other hand, the chance that a member of the general public outside of mainland China comes into close contact with someone who is infected, whether they're in the rest of Asia or not, is within a few orders of magnitude of 0.00001%.
I wonder what the rational tipping point would be for mask vs no mask.
2-Your estimates of the probability are unlikely shift properly as the landscape of infection changes rapidly, and is not apparent to the naked eye.
Humans intuitively do not tend to comprehend exponential/quadratic growth. This video outlines it. The main point is to look how late, in this scenario you'd be saying "no problem" and how quickly it goes from fine, to effed. Note: this is not an endorsement on the other items in this channel, I just think this particular explanation is demonstrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwyMif5EOg&feature=youtu.be...
I never said it was limited to the nation of China, I said it wasn't widespread outside of China and a cruise ship, which remains true despite significant travel still occurring.
Humans are also terrible at intuitively assessing risk, and the current panic is a great example of this.
Doesn't that also apply to you? Have you looked into when and where testing is performed? In the US, if you don't have a china travel history, they won't test you.
This has an incubation period that is still indeterminate, and in the US and other large countries, they are barely testing. So you literally don't have a way to be sure of what you're claiming--there's just no data, but somehow you are very confident in what you claim?
Have you read up on the Spanish Flu? Was that just a "panic"? So far, by every measure, this looks to be worse--more transmissible, harder to detect, with a higher mortality rate. The Spanish Flu killed between 1 and 5% of the world's population.
Yes indeed, and to you also. But in the same way that one can learn to better appreciate exponential growth, one can learn to better appreciate risk, and try to apply that knowledge rationally rather than basing decisions on fear.
> Have you looked into when and where testing is performed? In the US, if you don't have a china travel history, they won't test you.
Yes. The most reliable testing procedures are quite invasive and carry at least some exposure risk for the healthcare worker carrying them out, especially if done outside a hospital setting. They also aren't guaranteed to detect the virus in the early stages, or in minor infections. This is one reason why China has moved to include clinical diagnoses as confirmed cases, and it's also why they didn't just test every person on the Yokohama cruise ship straight away.
> This has an incubation period that is still indeterminate
Not really. There are some pretty good bounds on it, especially with the significant number of cases in Wuhan available as data.
I am confident in what I claim (given that what I claim is quite limited). I'm not making predictions here, I'm talking about the current state of things. Beyond that, let's see what happens...
Different cultures and situations handle this very differently. I'm hearing reports in London that people are being attacked for wearing a mask in public.
Meanwhile, if you want to scare everyone around you in Hong Kong, go out without a mask and then cough.
See: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/index.html
Your link & the CDC don't say what you think they say.
CDC's recommendations are that members of the uninfected public should not wear N95 masks.
This should NOT be understood as: CDC says N95 masks are ineffective at preventing airborne infections of Covid-19.
It IS the CDC saying: N95 masks are non-trivial to use correctly, require decontamination protocols or single-use replacement to avoid infection and contamination from used masks themselves (potentially full of virus particles), and protect against a threat many people are unlikely to be exposed to (close proximity infected persons) -- a mix of criteria that make them inefficient to recommend for general public use.
As you see in the link above, CDC absolutely recommends N95+ respirators for EMS and healthcare workers, when working in close proximity to infected persons.
But healthcare workers have a substantially higher airborne exposure risk, as well as professional support and training for properly using N95 masks.
> China has close to 100% usage of masks in public
You know, 100% usage in public is an excellent way to ensure that people who are infected wear the masks.
I'm not the slightest bit concerned. No country except mainland China has more than 70 confirmed cases, and deaths worldwide are in the single digits outside of China. These are countries with millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of inhabitants. I'm heading to Singapore in a few days, which has the most cases outside of mainland China (likely because they're very good at tracking them) -- 67 out of a population of 5.7 million (0.00001%), and of course all of those people are in quarantine. I imagine some cases haven't been discovered yet, but I have a hard time imagining that changing the order of magnitude.
I'd be willing to travel to many parts of mainland China, but it causes problems for traveling to other countries, so I'm unable to for now.
I'll alter my travel according to the facts as they change, but for now there's absolutely no rational reason I can see for avoiding travel to any country other than mainland China.
Edited to add: numbers are from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
What if a group of Chinese nationals traveling to a tour get on your plane / bus / etc, or were the previous people in your seat? You don't have that high of a risk from this scenario, but it is more exposure than you'd get at home.
It's also worth noting that the fact that they're Chinese nationals doesn't really move the needle that much on how likely it is that they're infected. About 0.00005% of the mainland China resident population is confirmed to be infected, and the vast majority of those (over 80%) are in Hubei, which given the lockdown makes it very unlikely that you will meet them on an aircraft. Even if you allow for under-reporting the order of magnitude is probably about right.
Additionally there are another 50 million Chinese nationals living in other countries, who I would submit are more likely than those resident in China to be traveling right now, and are also far less likely to be infected. This is one reason why the racism seen recently in Australia and UK against Chinese-looking people wearing masks is so ridiculous.
The next step up from a surgical mask is an NIOSH rated mask / respirator. These carry a letter and number rating the letter is either N, R, or P and the number is typically 95 - 100. N95 is a NIOSH filter rating and where the term N95 mask comes from. These will filter out any viruses and other particulates in the air. There are studies showing that N95 Masks are effective.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part...
edit: all that said there are studies that show both types have similar effectiveness at preventing infections in healthcare workers so I wouldn't go around telling people that any of them are useless.
You need to wear them properly. You need to change them regularly. You need to practice effective hygiene like not touching your face.
If the government distributed masks that could be effective to everyone, it’s unlikely they would have a noticeable effect
The people in my compound who were confirmed to have the virus (we found out on the 12th) got it at a family gathering over the new year holiday in Shanghai. So obviously they weren’t wearing a mask then.
What seems to be making a difference in China — it’s no longer spreading like wildfire, if you believe the official reports* — is self-quarantine. Most of my friends have barely left home since the beginning of February. For a while, some restaurants that were still open wouldn’t let people sit together in parties larger than 2. And at least in Beijing, everyone who returns to the city after travel must undergo mandatory 14 day home quarantine, with fines or punishments for those caught violating (https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/02/14/world/asia/14reut... though enforcement varies from place to place).
* Wuhan/Hubei are a tragedy no matter how you count. But at least Beijing is doing OK. I mostly trust the official numbers, simply because the Party has a strong vested interest in mounting a response commensurate with the threat. They can’t let the virus spread too much and rip apart the capital; neither can they afford to tank the economy for several months longer than necessary to contain the threat. Even with all the censorship, if you find yourself fighting against reality, reality wins.
I dunno where you were in HK, but the only place I haven't seen everyone wearing a mask is in Soho. Everywhere else, I'm seeing near 100% coverage.
Their elbow is about 5 inches away from their mouth, which doesn’t suppress the saliva and air molecules coming from their lungs anyways. It might catch some of the spittle, but I’m sure most of it becomes aerosolized anyways.
People, in general, are disgusting.
I'm also really skeptical of the effectiveness of flimsy surgical masks.
I'd expect respirators with filters of the P100 and N95 variety (which respectively filter out 100% and 95% of particles 3 microns or larger) to be far more effective.
Let's just say that N95 masks protect you at 95% effectiveness from airborne contamination, and 50% from touch contamination because it stops you from touching your own face, but doesn't stop you from rubbing your eyes, or penetrating your skin in other locations, or for your food preparers from sneezing on your steak. Surgical masks are, for the sake of simplicity, 80% effective at protecting you from airborne contamination.
Let's also say gloves do 0% to protect you from airborne infection, and varying degrees of protection from physical touch depending on the material. Let's say cotton is 40% touch protection because it provides a physical separation of half a millimeter, but it's porous. It keeps your oily skin from picking up residue from contaminated surfaces as easily as bare skin. Flexible oil-based gloves have a 80% protection, but are more easily penetrated by rough surfaces lowering their total protection value (still fake numbers!). They also cause sweat problems for some people and affect the health of the skin itself if worn daily for many hours at a time.
Gloves don't protect you from contaminated item ingestion. They slightly protect you from transmission through touching your face because they inherently pickup a little less than your oily skin. More likely is that you'd simply avoid touching your face more easily because the gloves would be a mental prompt to remind you that your hands are potentially infected.
Biohazard suits are obviously the most effective form of protection.
So on this spectrum of protection, you have several different vectors you're defending against, and several methods of protection. In bare terms of protection, clearly the highest form of protection is the biohazard suit. Why not go for that? Well the cost is too high both in terms of money and in social outcomes. They're also relatively delicate compared to simple clothing and would have to be replaced far more often. Filters would need to be replaced often as well.
Hopefully my unrealistic numbers above help show that there is no "right" answer, all answers have trade offs, and all answers are more appropriate situationally than others. That's the ultimate point.
Someone who travels via subway everyday might well benefit more from an N95 mask than gloves. The cost might even be provably effective. Cotton gloves might be very beneficial for that individual as well, but clearly wearing oil-based gloves would be more effective for their commute.
Someone who drives by themselves in their car, and works in an office building where no more than 5 to 10 people touch the door everyday, they might be fine without either a mask or gloves, unless they are going shopping. Washing hands and asking sick coworkers to cover their mouth when they cough seems completely satisfactory.
I personally don't use either gloves or masks, but I am prepared with cotton gloves if my region shows signs of infection, and will use them when shopping or touching potentially infected surfaces.
I prefer cotton gloves because they're easy and cheap to make, and they're reusable, and biodegradable. I don't see oil based gloves as being a sustainable solution for an entire nation. That's my own personal preference though and I don't like to push that mindset on others. There are more egregious forms of waste than tiny gloves.
N95 masks (and other types of HEPA filters) actually perform better on smaller particles.
A very common misconception is that HEPA filters only filter particles larger than 0.3 microns. In fact there's multiple different filtration mechanisms at play, with interception and impaction working better for larger particles, and diffusion being more effective for smaller particles. HEPA filters are rated for their effectiveness at 0.3 microns because that size is the size where the combination of mechanisms operate worst: smaller and larger particles are filtered even more effectively.
There is a time lag! The disease doesn’t care if you are Chinese or white. No hospital system can handle the numbers that came first to China, and will soon come here.
Wapo downplaying the virus. Just like they’ve downplayed the threat of globalism. And those who have tried to sound the alarm or argued that we should, gasp, renegotiate trade and bring back some manufacturing, those people are slandered as xenophobic or economics dunces. “Any serious person knows we can’t bring manufacturing back.” “Protectionism is stupid, trade wars hurt us,etc...” And now they want to tell the American public, “no death outside China.” Blood on their hands!
Why would you say that this is racism or irresponsible journalism? It seems like a simple statement of fact.