Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodandsteel | Hacker News Reader

So what are you saying public policy should be?

You know, there are basically two groups of countries in the world today. In one group there have been a strong set of policies to fight the virus, and it includes face masks, and in this group the virus has been beaten back.

In the other countries, including the US, things have been much more lax, including lots of people not wearing face masks, and the virus has exploded.

So are you saying the correct public policy should be strong measures on things like social distancing and contact tracing, but people should be free to not wear face masks? Why take a chance with that when we know the set of policies that includes face masks works?

Or perhaps you are the one of the people, like Trump, Bolsonaro and others, who is for lax policies all around.

View on HN

> In one group there have been a strong set of policies to fight the virus, and it includes face masks, and in this group the virus has been beaten back

But, as the article says, when we study this we find a bunch of other things happening that are probably more important. These include symptomatic people self isolating; people more willing to comply with social distancing; better hand washing; earlier close-down; etc.

It doesn't matter if some other things are more important. If it is helpful, then it should be included in policies. Do you agree?

And this matters because in the US and an a number of other countries, a large proportion of people refuse to wear face masks, and the government doesn't mandate them, and that is bad. And the people who refuse to wear face masks usually also refuse to follow some or all of the other measures. We are talking about a whole bundle of measures here.

Is there any evidence of smear transmission?

The policy should be treat mask as recommendation not mandate and no business occupancy restriction.

>and the virus has exploded

Yes the virus has exploded but not worth going into lockdown, most people are asymptomatic or have mild symptom.

This is not like Ebola where you most likely going to die if u get infected.

If we let the virus run wild then over a million Americans would die from it. And the hospitals would be vastly overwhelmed, so many more people who need hospitalization from other causes would die. And many millions would suffer severe diseases, like for weeks, and with many of them there would be strong aftereffects lasting for months.

In the countries that have had a strong lockdown and other measures, within a few months they had the disease halted and beaten back, and could go back to mostly normal. I think that is vastly better.

>If we let the virus run wild then over a million Americans would die from it

If we use ifr 1% then there would be 3 million american which is not bad.

> And the hospitals would be vastly overwhelmed

Only small percentage of hospital has this issue, even then the solution should be to increase hospital capacity.

>And many millions would suffer severe diseases, like for weeks

No different with any other diseases, common cold could make people suffer for weeks too.

> and with many of them there would be strong aftereffects lasting for months

There is no conclusive evidence about the severity and how many are affected.

>In the countries that have had a strong lockdown and other measures, within a few months they had the disease halted

The disease may halt temporarily but the economic cost are enormous then when you reopen the infection come back.

Where's your reference for """In one group there have been a strong set of policies to fight the virus, and it includes face masks, and in this group the virus has been beaten back."""

California and Washington both have mask laws and their infection rates have skyrocketed.

I live in California, and the mask rules at the state level were not dictated, only recommended, and in most locations where they were law they were not rigorously enforced. And then Gov Newsome relaxed social distancing, and the infection rate shot up.

But tell me, what do you think the policies should be, for masks and everything else?

Just asking for your reference on this statement:

"""In one group there have been a strong set of policies to fight the virus, and it includes face masks, and in this group the virus has been beaten back."""

Because you're making it sound much more conclusive than what I've been seeing.

No, I am not going to give you a reference. If you have been paying attention to the story, you have seen a hundred stories about the various nations and their policies.

I think you are playing dumb.

Also I explained your description of the policies in California was a gross misrepresentation. Will you agree you got it wrong?

And let me ask you yet again, what policies are you for? That's why this whole argument matters.

Posting flamewar comments like this will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart. Especially now, when nerves are frayed and emotions high.

You got no reference. Keep on believing friend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com