←back to thread

Amazon begins temperature checks and will provide surgical masks at warehouses

(www.reuters.com)
265 points ajaviaad | 8 comments | 02 Apr 20 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.758s | source | bottom
Show context
chvid ◴[02 Apr 20 15:42 UTC] No.22760237[source]▶
I thought here in the west that it was well-established that temperature checks and mask do not work against the corona?!
replies(8): >>22760273 #>>22760292 #>>22760320 #>>22760373 #>>22760375 #>>22760387 #>>22760433 #>>22761127 #
amiga_500 ◴[02 Apr 20 15:51 UTC] No.22760320[source]▶
I have a hard time believing that everyone wearing a mask when interacting doesn't inhibit a disease transmitted via vapor in our breath.
replies(2): >>22760484 #>>22761901 #
1. btilly ◴[02 Apr 20 16:05 UTC] No.22760484[source]▶
There is actually a debate about this.

A bad mask (eg a bandanna) means less virus gets out, but it is more likely to get out in the form of a fine aerosol that hangs in the air for hours. On the opposite end it is a reminder not to touch your face (prevents transmission from your hands) but won't stop you from breathing in an aerosol.

Likely still a net win, but kinda a hard thing to do good research on.

There is no doubt that masks that are designed to block things the size of viruses help. Just issues about who is the highest priority to get them when they are in short supply.

replies(4): >>22760549 #>>22760639 #>>22760714 #>>22760720 #
2. xkapastel ◴[02 Apr 20 16:11 UTC] No.22760549[source]▶
Aerosol is not any more likely to get out than not wearing anything. And a bad mask prevents droplets from getting in as well.
replies(1): >>22761803 #
3. erik ◴[02 Apr 20 16:20 UTC] No.22760639[source]▶
> A bad mask (eg a bandanna) means less virus gets out, but it is more likely to get out in the form of a fine aerosol

Do you have a reference for this? I've only ever heard of aerosolization primarily being a concern around people on breathing assistance equipment.

replies(1): >>22761770 #
4. amiga_500 ◴[02 Apr 20 16:27 UTC] No.22760714[source]▶
> Just issues about who is the highest priority to get them when they are in short supply.

The root cause is offshoring safety critical manufacturing:

https://www.wired.com/story/decades-offshoring-led-mask-shor...

5. Ensorceled ◴[02 Apr 20 16:27 UTC] No.22760720[source]▶
Who is debating this? I haven't seen a reliable "con" side of this debate, they are all weird "people will take less care", "cloth masks are not as good as N95", "people will wear them poorly and the mask won't be as effective".

These are all "perfect is the enemy of good" fallacies, not "debate".

Also, how does a bad mask increase aerosol? That makes no sense.

replies(1): >>22761751 #
6. btilly ◴[02 Apr 20 18:02 UTC] No.22761751[source]▶
See http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentar... for a reliable "con" side of the debate.

Note in particular that cloth masks were tried and failed during the Spanish flu epidemic.

7. btilly ◴[02 Apr 20 18:04 UTC] No.22761770[source]▶
I can't find the source I saw it in, but the idea is this. If you cough, large droplets coat the inside of the cloth, and then are forced through the weave of the cloth and come out as small droplets. The smaller the droplet, the better it hangs out in the air.
8. btilly ◴[02 Apr 20 18:07 UTC] No.22761803[source]▶
I can't find the source on which I based my aerosol comment on, but the idea was that a large droplet which would have fallen gets trapped by the cloth. When it gets through, it comes out as a fine mist.

Given that I can't find it repeated, I suspect that it may be misinformation on my part.