
Cloth masks do protect the wearer - bookofjoe
https://theconversation.com/cloth-masks-do-protect-the-wearer-breathing-in-less-coronavirus-means-you-get-less-sick-143726
======
nostromo
This article speaks in a very authoritative tone, but the assertions aren't
fully backed by the research it links to.

And it bothers me that the quote, "dramatically less likely" is not a quote
from the linked research, but seemingly just a pull quote of the article
itself.

I support people wearing masks, even if it turned out to only be marginally
better than not wearing one, but this article is borderline overreaching.

~~~
cbsks
The linked article seems to back it up:
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8)

> In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak, all
> passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after
> the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In this closed
> setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually
> tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, the majority of infected patients
> on the ship (81%) remained asymptomatic, compared with 18% in the cruise
> ship outbreak without masking.

> A report from a pediatric hemodialysis unit in Indiana, where all patients
> and staff were masked, demonstrated that staff rapidly developed antibodies
> to SARS-CoV-2 after exposure to a single symptomatic patient with COVID-19.
> In the setting of masking, however, none of the new infections was
> symptomatic. And in a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in
> Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work, the rate of
> asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%. An outbreak in a
> Tyson chicken plant in Arkansas with masking also showed a 95% asymptomatic
> rate of infection.

~~~
rosywoozlechan
It makes intuitive sense that a face covering would reduce the viral load one
is exposed to. I've heard of other studies that have shown that the degree of
virus exposure affects outcomes. Those involved exposure time and exposure
distance to symptomatic patients with COVID-19. If a face covering reduces the
viral load you get exposed to, seems like it would have the same effect as
getting a lower dose exposure due to being a greater distance away or because
of a reduced exposure time with a contagious individual. I hope more research
supports the benefits of masks as it sounds like good news.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
The viral load thing came up in some podcast I was listening too. So
experiments were done with the flu Or cold virus and a smaller load resulted
in a less severe infection.

They obviously can’t repeat the experiment with COVID. They suspect the same
thing happens but they aren’t sure.

Oh the off chance it really is true, I’m wearing a mask!

~~~
istorical
would be great if someone can find them, but pretty sure there was a study
done during the SARS 1 outbreak in the Canadian hospital that attempted to
demonstrate that physical proximity to severe cases (and highly symptomatic
individuals?) was correlated to viral load and further correlated to severity
of illness. At least I saw people early on in Novel Coronavirus days of
Jan/Feb speculating about the meaning of said study.

------
waterheater
This study from 2010 is the only one I've ever seen which tests the
effectiveness of masks being worn on a face:

[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/153567601001500...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/153567601001500204)

"The protective efficiencies were 33.3%, 11.3%, and 6.1% for the surgical,
bandana, and dust masks, respectively. The N95 mask protective efficiency was
89.6%. In conclusion, the surgical mask protected the best of the three face
masks tested. However, it is important to note that all three masks offer very
little protection when compared to the N95, and wearing these face masks may
produce a false sense of protection."

~~~
waterheater
I'm also going to use this post to highlight how historical revisionism and
censorship of opposing viewpoints is occurring regarding masking.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20200625094522/https://www.oralhe...](http://web.archive.org/web/20200625094522/https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-
masks-dont-work-revealing-review/)

The article is called "Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review",
published October 18, 2016.

This is the webpage as of early July 2020:
[https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-
wor...](https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-
revealing-review/)

"If you are looking for “Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review” by
John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC, it has been removed. The content was
published in 2016 and is no longer relevant in our current climate."

"No longer relevant in our current climate."

~~~
dandelany
The original paper was asking the question: Do surgical masks provide adequate
protection against disease transmission for dentists and patients in a
clinical context? And their conclusion was: no.

This is an entirely separate question from: Do masks provide _enough_
protection against disease transmission to be worth wearing/recommending in
public places during a global pandemic, despite their imperfections? The
answer to that, from many other studies, seems to be clearly yes. I can
imagine that anti-mask folks started using this article as ammunition, due to
the catchy headline ("see, this article says face masks don't work!"), and the
publishers felt it was doing more harm than good and took it down for that
reason.

~~~
ketamine__
> Do masks provide enough protection against disease transmission to be worth
> wearing/recommending in public places during a global pandemic, despite
> their imperfections? The answer to that, from many other studies, seems to
> be clearly yes.

A randomized trial with surgical masks during Covid-19 will be published soon.
Here are some quotes and commentary:

> “All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions
> based on new studies,” Bundgaard said in an interview in Copenhagen.

> He says there’s evidence to suggest that the only effective face covering
> might be a visor, because the virus can spread through all mucous membranes,
> including via the eyes. He worries a cloth covering that only protects the
> nose and mouth provides a “false sense of security.”

> Bundgaard says the simple rules that currently exist in Denmark -- hand-
> washing, social distancing, self-isolating if you’re sick -- are effective
> because they’re easy to remember. He worries that using face masks might
> lead people to be “sloppy” in following the other guidelines.

> Bundgaard’s study on masks is due to be published next month. In the
> meantime, he says he hopes they don’t become mandatory in Denmark.

[https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-
adds...](https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/face-mask-photo-op-adds-to-
bewilderment-over-non-use-in-denmark)

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32829745/)

~~~
Jommi
So negative effect of masks seems to only be a social effect, that can be
combatted by proper messaging and PR.

Seems like an easy problem to deal with.

~~~
bonchicbongenre
Agree with your first sentence.

Unless you're being sarcastic (apologies if so, and no mean to offend if not),
I take the opposite conclusion though, which seems borne out by reality.
Public messaging and for social cohesion in service of the greater good is the
_hardest_ problem affecting any large-scale coordinated response, especially
with propaganda, doublethink, and flat-out unwillingness to learn being so
common. I gather that the article the previous commenter mentioned was removed
so that such propagandists couldn't willingly misinterpret it to pass on to
their sycophants.

------
Mattasher
Many, many links in that article, but in the only study I see, this is not an
experiment, it's observational study.

There are lots of reasons to believe wearing masks might be correlated with
other mitigating behaviours (hand washing, going out less, etc), which would
also reduce contact with the infected.

Also, I see no mention of studying possible side-effects of universal,
permanent mask wearing, which makes this study irresponsible at the least.

~~~
wwweston
With you on considering the possible causation in other associated mitigating
behaviors, but:

> studying possible side-effects of universal, permanent mask wearing

Can you suggest a model which would imply there are likely to be any side-
effects?

I'm also sortof baffled by the suggestion that there's anyone doing
"permanent" mask wearing. I've been pretty fastidious about face coverings
since early on but I don't think I've ever kept one on for more than 6 hours
at a time, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing so outside of a long shift at
work.

------
daxfohl
Is it possible that a very very low exposure can cause your body to ramp up an
immunity response? I'm wondering if fatality rate has gone down because most
people by now have had some exposure to the virus: not enough to get sick (not
even asymptomatic), but enough for the immune system to prep that something is
in the environment.

~~~
IncRnd
If only they made vaccines that way.

~~~
daxfohl
Vaccines are usually dead or mostly-dead or otherwise-modified things. It's
not just low counts of live viruses.

~~~
SquareWheel
See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine)

~~~
btilly
Your clarification was less correct than what you replied to.

Vaccines are not all attenuated. Often they are killed. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine)
for more on that.

~~~
datameta
It's interesting that the word used for inactivated viruses is "killed" rather
than, for instance, "destroyed". Destroyed might not be a better word choice
because it may imply that the structure is completely taken apart but point
being: (not to throw semantics into the mix just for kicks) does modern
science consider viruses to be alive?

~~~
sukilot
> does modern science consider viruses to be alive?

This is a (bad) philisophical question for people who do not understand the
concept of "spectrum", not a scientific question.

~~~
datameta
I don't believe there is such a thing as a bad philosophical question. Perhaps
some questions aren't yet worth the time investment to think about. When we
engineer self-replicating machinery (or rather, before then) this caveat is
worth defining.

~~~
btilly
I disagree.

Deciding where on the spectrum between non-life and life we declare something
to be alive is endlessly debatable and non-actionable. The fact that in time
technology will add more points on that spectrum does not change this fact.

------
BickNowstrom
\- U.S. Surgeon General Feb 6 > Americans should be more concerned about the
flu than coronavirus [...] As surgeon general, I’m telling folks the number
one way to protect ourselves is to get a flu shot.

\- U.S. Surgeon General @Surgeon_General Feb 29 > Seriously people- STOP
BUYING MASKS!

> They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching
> #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick
> patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

\- U.S. Surgeon General, Mar 6 [Deleted Tweet] > Early am flight. No one with
masks (they aren't recommended for general public) but noticed several people
using antibacterial wipes on seats (I do this too). I'm not worried about
#COVID19 - I'm worried about #flu & the guy reclining all the way back into me
before takeoff. :/

"Surgeon general says administration "trying to correct" earlier guidance
against wearing masks" July 12 > We're trying to correct that messaging, but
it's very hard to do.

So what do we call this? Criminal negligence?

The World Health Organization played World Trade Organization and warned
against banning flights from China. The U.S. General cared more about hardware
stores not running out of masks, so medics could still get the masks that the
government neglected to store or produce in case of a pandemic. The greatest
U.S. authorities (including Azar and Fauci) did not trust the intelligence of
the general public enough to promote mask usage, as they were afraid we were
going to infect ourself by licking the front the mask when discarding it.
"Better to just avoid sick people" they said, completely ignoring the
impossibility of identifying sick people with asymptomatic spread or avoiding
other people in busy cities. "Only wear a mask when you are sick" they said,
condemning people who thought for themselves and read the research, and wore a
mask to protect themselves and their caretakers, to the status of Leprosy
sufferers.

~~~
tedsanders
Let me play devil's advocate.

> U.S. Surgeon General Feb 6 > Americans should be more concerned about the
> flu than coronavirus [...] As surgeon general, I’m telling folks the number
> one way to protect ourselves is to get a flu shot.

On Feb 6, if you lived in the United States, your likelihood of catching and
dying from the flu was very possibly higher than COVID19. It's very possible
the US Surgeon General wasn't saying to never worry; rather, that it was too
early to worry at that time. I got a very bad flu-like illness in late January
in Las Vegas. My assumption is that it was very likely the flu, based on
estimated base rates of the diseases at that time.

> U.S. Surgeon General @Surgeon_General Feb 29 > Seriously people- STOP BUYING
> MASKS!

If masks have higher ROI for healthcare workers than average citizens, and
there's a limited supply of masks, then telling average citizens to not buy
masks makes perfect sense to me.

> They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching
> #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick
> patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

> U.S. Surgeon General, Mar 6 [Deleted Tweet] > Early am flight. No one with
> masks (they aren't recommended for general public) but noticed several
> people using antibacterial wipes on seats (I do this too). I'm not worried
> about #COVID19 - I'm worried about #flu & the guy reclining all the way back
> into me before takeoff.

Yeah, I cannot come up with any defense for these statements. These statements
were clear mistakes by the US Surgeon General. I hope he regrets them and
learns from them.

~~~
misanthropian00
He can learn from his mistakes as he searches for a new job outside of public
health.

------
ColanR
Multiple citations, but this one seems to be what's referenced by the title:
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8)

Interesting to note that it is a discussion of models and general
implications, but is not actually a study of itself.

~~~
s1artibartfast
While I suspect that the hypothesis is correct, the article is in no way
conclusive or authoritative. There is no attempt to control for other
variables which could explain the observations.

For example, the seafood and chicken processing plants had a 95% asymptomatic
rate among the infected.

I would love to see some studies which compared this against rates that are
normally seen for the same age/gender/heath ect.

Similarly, how do these observations fit in to the greater picture. Are there
other processing plants that used masks but had higher rates of symptoms?

Also, another way to view this data is that perhaps we are vastly
underestimating total number of asymptomatic cases overall due to reporting
and testing biases.

------
elihu
On the one hand, we don't know for sure if the number of virus particles one
is exposed to correlates to severity of disease with SARS-CoV-2 in humans
because we don't have rigorous studies that say so. On the other hand, it
would be less surprising if it were true than if it isn't, and we should
probably proceed on the assumption it's probably true. (Though I'm not an
epidemiologist except to the extent that we've all become amateur
epidemiologists these days, so don't take my word for it.)

~~~
BurningFrog
As I understand it, it's always better to be infected with few viruses than
with many.

Think of it like this: I you get infected with 10 instead of 1.000.000 of a
virus that grows x10 each day, your immune system has 5 extra days to fight
it.

 _[Disclaimer: I 'm a random software guy who reads a lot, not in any way a
virus expert]_

~~~
gridlockd
The problem with severe COVID, as I understand it, is an immune system that
did nothing until it was too late, at which point it overreacts and releases a
cytokine storm.

The hamster study did not show a big difference in outcome with higher viral
load, contrary to what the article suggests.

------
fortran2003
> In an outbreak on an Australian cruise ship called the Greg Mortimer in late
> March, the passengers were all given surgical masks and the staff was given
> N95 masks after the first case of Covid-19 was identified. Mask usage was
> apparently very high, and even though 128 of the 217 passengers and staff
> eventually tested positive for the coronavirus, 81% of the infected people
> remained asymptomatic.

Does anyone know what the baseline to compare with is? What was the rate of
symptoms in Diamond Princess?

------
biophysboy
COVID has really taught me the limitations of data journalism and data
science. Both presume trust in the data collectors and data communicators, and
many people simply do not.

I think it would be much better to let people "test it" for themselves. Let
them be the scientists, ask them basic questions. You can do this with a kid:

1) Where is the virus in our body? (answer: in the lungs)

2) What does it feel like to wear a mask? (answer: hot/stuffy)

3) Why does it feel hot/stuffy? (answer: the mask is keeping your exhalation
closer to you)

4) If masks block your breath, and your breath has the virus, does that not
then mean that masks block the virus? (answer: yes)

Bonus) Suppose masks don't actually block the virus that well, say by only
10%. Will they still affect the chain of transmission (yes, its
"multiplicative": 90-> 81%->72%->...)

This "psuedo-experiment" would not be up to snuff for a journal, but
conversations are not publications. Its better to make assumptions and make
deductive arguments, because then you don't need to rely on trust in
scientific institutions.

~~~
GuB-42
Maybe suitable for small kids, but oversimplified.

1) The virus is not only in the lungs, but it is not important here, pass.
Maybe insist on the fact it can be in the nose, to encourage people to put
their mask on their nose.

2) Good observation

3) That the wrong part. Hot means that heat is trapped, but air definitely
isn't, you wouldn't be able to breathe otherwise. That you can't breathe with
masks is a common argument used by anti-maskers, and many times shown wrong.
Masks can keep your breath closer to you in the sense that you don't project
it as far because it makes it slower and more diffuse. It also has a chance to
trap droplets containing the virus.

4) masks _don 't block your breath_ in fact surgical masks are more effective
and more breathable than cotton masks. That's because surgical masks are
optimized to stop viruses and let air through.

~~~
biophysboy
All of your points are true, and would be brought up by an informed adult or
smart kid, but notice how none of them defeat the underlying deductive
argument. Simplicity is its strength. If anything, letting them make it
complicated by questioning assumptions and revising them will just convince
them more, because now it’s sort of their argument, not somebody else’s.

1) It’s not just in our lungs, but in our entire “breathing system”. Still
need to control the breath.

2) Masks don’t block oxygen, but they block the wet part of the breath at
least somewhat. The wet part is the dangerous part.

You could go back and forth with a so-called “anti-masker” and you’d prob be
leagues ahead of where you’d be if you shared a masks article.

~~~
thu2111
That's easy to turn around on you.

Here's a simple argument: death rates from COVID are about the same as a
regular flu season in places that didn't do dumb things like close hospitals
and send sick people into care homes. In many places they're around the level
of flu.

But flu is always around. If we don't wear masks all the time, then why do we
need to wear them now?

There is no logical answer to this except "you should wear masks permanently"
which many people will never accept, as the benefits are simply too low to
justify the consequent problems.

~~~
misanthropian00
Death rates may not be the only problem though. There is evidence that covid
damages the heart and sometimes even the brain. This damage might cause many
deaths years from now.

~~~
thu2111
There was also evidence COVID was a terribly deadly disease that would kill at
minimum 500,000 healthy people (in the UK), thus requiring urgent and massive
shutdowns. Turned out to all be completely false.

So my point stands. If you're going to make simple pro-mask arguments, be
prepared for equally simple counterarguments. Excess death data says 2020 is
for most countries an unremarkable basically normal year. Even in the few
where it's not, it's still comparable to prior years when nobody noticed
anything at the time, so hardly abnormal.

"Long COVID" may be the usual problem of slow recovery from viral infection
that occasionally happens, or it may hardly be real given the broad array of
vague symptoms that are now allowed to characterise the disease. Everything
from a runny nose to a headache to full blown pneumonia is classifiable as
COVID these days. That means many people with other issues will end up with
spurious correlations of the form, "I had COVID symptoms and now I am
fatigued" when the cause may not be "COVID". The apparent lack of consistency
in these reports, the wildly varying time between infection and onset, etc,
all suggests there's a lot of noise in these reports. Definitely not a part of
any simple argument for mask wearing.

------
chrisweekly
Masks' efficacy at protecting the _wearer_ is not the only point; their
primary purpose is to help protect _others_ , as in "my mask protects you;
your mask protects me".

~~~
neltnerb
Sure, but being able to say that the mask protects you too will appeal to some
people. If people's reasons are selfish but the outcome is the same it's fine
with me... I do suspect that it protects the wearer as well though.

I don't know why that was even in serious question unless the only
transmission method was putting your fingers in your mouth or something. Of
course more filtering will be better.

~~~
sukilot
It's a serious question because theoretically a mask can trap viral particles
for later introduction into your membranes, instead of them just passing by in
the air.

~~~
neltnerb
I've heard that, but where do these viral particles come from? The mask
wearer? If so, that's the goal isn't it? And if it's from outside and gets
trapped in the fabric... isn't that also a win?

The arguments against wearing a mask have always been weak, the arguments for
wearing a mask didn't start so strong but were well established in
March/April. Anyone arguing against them after that point was either parroting
stuff they heard without understanding, or was making disingenuous arguments
that have contributed to a lot of misery and death for no benefit.

I don't think I heard anyone with actual medical training suggest that wearing
a mask might be _worse_ than nothing -- except for one scenario, that it might
cause a false sense of security. Never once have I heard another reason from
someone with actual medical training for why masks might make things worse, at
least when it comes to COVID.

------
gridlockd
The hamster study shows only very minor difference between high and low viral
load with Sars-CoV2.

The paper that the headline is based on does not really support the headline.

Other links are not specific to COVID.

------
dang
We changed the URL from [https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/masks-breathing-in-
less-co...](https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/masks-breathing-in-less-
coronavirus-means-you-get-less-sick) to the original source it points to. From
the site guidelines: _Please submit the original source. If a post reports on
something found on another site, submit the latter._

------
sukilot
> In 2015, researchers tested this concept in human volunteers using a
> nonlethal flu virus and found the same result. The higher the flu virus dose
> given to the volunteers, the sicker they became.

I didn't know that was ethical.

------
jungletime
placebo effect? just like putting stripes on your car makes it go faster.
Putting on a mask, boosts the immune system, because there's an inner ninja
inside all of us. Ready to kick ass.

~~~
RhysU
That's fun. The same effect would amp up the inner ninja in those who decide
to not wear masks.

~~~
jungletime
well, if we can assume that a placebo effect is due to a state of mind. And a
state of mind can be induced using a ritual. Putting on a mask, in a ritual
way, might just work better to ready the mind for battle. Watch some old
school Karate movies. There's often a ritual the hero undertakes, to steady
and focus the mind, before a battle. Sometimes its a bandana on the head. That
might work too! needs to be tried.

------
username90
Mask use has been legally mandatory in Texas for 2 months now yet deaths are
still high. Whatever this effect is it doesn't seem "dramatically less
likely".

~~~
_jal
Not defending the article, but cocaine use has been legally forbidden in Texas
for many, many years.

Laws != compliance with laws.

~~~
username90
This says 85% wears masks in the Texas region.

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/more-
americ...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/more-americans-
say-they-are-regularly-wearing-masks-in-stores-and-other-businesses/)

~~~
rsynnott
That seems... low, if it’s mandatory?

~~~
sukilot
Have you seen anyone not wearing a mask? Did that person face legal
consequences?

Do you think speed limits have >85% compliance?

~~~
rsynnott
I’ve seen full compliance in shops and things lately. Not letting the maskless
in apparently helps.

------
teilo
In animal models, with hamsters.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/masks-breathing-in-less-
co...](https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/masks-breathing-in-less-coronavirus-
means-you-get-less-sick), which points to this.

------
sedatk
What's wrong with the design of the web site? It's borderline unreadable.

------
HenryKissinger
Can wearing or not wearing a mask to protect oneself from covid-19 be regarded
as an example of natural selection at work? Where mask wearers are most
adapted to survival in their environment and non-mask wearers are not?

~~~
ketamine__
Masks aren't evidence based medicine. There isn't enough research. There are
no randomized trials on cloth masks that are running.

If evidence based medicine isn't an advantage then it's down to luck?

~~~
nicoburns
Isn't containing coughs and sneezes (along with hand washing, etc) one of the
most fundemental parts of our understanding of how to prevent the spread of
infectious diseases. The NHS has had the "catch it, bin it, kill it" motto for
years as a way to prevent flu / common cold. There may not be studies
specifically into covid-19 on this topic. But we do know that this is one of
the primary spread vectors for basically every other similar respiritory
disease. It's worth studying covid specifically just to be sure, but it would
be bizarre if covid was different in this respect. And IMO it's completely
wrong to say we have no evidence tht masks work.

~~~
ketamine__
> There may not be studies specifically into covid-19 on this topic.

There is only one study that looked at cloth masks and it was completed in
2015.

> And IMO it's completely wrong to say we have no evidence tht masks work.

I never said that. I'm saying that a high standard of evidence has not been
met and there isn't much interest in running trials on cloth masks. The only
one I could find is in Guinea-Bissau.

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04471766](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04471766)

------
sabujp
haven't read the study, but i'm guessing it has to do with viral load

~~~
sabujp
downvoted to oblivion for stating the obvious

------
aaron695
Except for "dramatically" we knew this in January.

It takes years to train a populous to wear masks. Asia didn't just turn it on.

So were is the reckoning to the medial experts who fought this all the way,
who told us to just wash our hands with soap.

These same people chose our complex cancer treatments, yet after 100 years of
disease control, masks are a medical argument in the West still.

------
renewiltord
It will be interesting to see how we view this in the years to come. I was
here, and had certain (once reviled) views, so I remember these closely:

1\. Masks don't work! -> Nope, they do.

2\. You need training to make masks work! -> Nope, you don't.

3\. If you don't wear your mask perfectly, you're going to get the disease.
The outcome is binary. -> Doesn't look that way.

There are a few still in line to be determined, supposedly:

* This disease is novel in ways that no other disease is. So a large percentage of those who get it will experience life-long adverse effects causing substantial loss of QALYs. -> I don't think so, but we'll see. Sure, a few people here and there will have life-long breathing issues but nearly everyone will have practically identical QoL as they did before.

* Single group activities are the biggest determiners of whether there will be an increase in cases in America. -> I don't think so. I think it'll be whether we have large scale openings. i.e. protests are not as big a deal as letting people go to restaurants (the latter will dwarf the former)

* Outdoor activities are spreading the disease at a substantial rate in America. -> I don't think so. It's not the beach-goers. It's the guys mostly indoors.

We'll see. Ultimately, thinking in Bayesian terms, this virus is less likely
to be novel in multiple ways than it is likely to be novel in one way. So far,
that looks to have been a good assumption. Let's see what else it holds up on.
There was always a lot of "We don't know enough. This could be the end of
civilization" going around and I think we always knew enough. We did and we
continue to.

~~~
TylerE
Are you not aware of the high rates of cardiac issues seen longterm?

[https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-causes-heart-damage-
hea...](https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-causes-heart-damage-healthy-
people.html)

[https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-
about-l...](https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-
lasting-heart-damage/)

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
From your first link: "However, exactly what these findings mean for patients'
heart health in the long term is unclear, the authors said. The heart
abnormalities seen in the study occasionally occur with other respiratory
diseases such as influenza and may be temporary"

News has a motivation to sensationalize, i.e. only time will tell if this was
a lot of panic over nothing or if 20% of the people who caught COVID will drop
dead over the next 10 years.

