Daily-Dose

Contents

From New Yorker

From Vox

Cloth masks won’t cut it against omicron.

The rapid spread of the omicron variant means that many medical and public health experts are urging Americans to adopt better masking protocols to protect themselves and others from the spread of Covid-19.

Masking best practices have changed since the beginning of the pandemic, and confusion still abounds about which mask to wear and in what circumstances. However, medical experts are in agreement: Masks are a crucial component in stopping the spread of all variants of Covid-19, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved N95 respirator is still the most effective mask on the market.

Although a simple cloth mask is better than no face covering at all, superior options are now widely available — much more so than in March 2020, when Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance about whether masking was even necessary for Covid-19 prevention vacillated.

And since the omicron variant appears to be far more transmissible than previous variants, masking is a critical tool in helping prevent the spread, particularly in areas where Covid-19 cases are high.

Here’s what to know about masking and omicron.

How mask usage should change with omicron

Mask-wearing guidance has changed a lot over the course of the pandemic, and omicron presents more changes — as well as more opportunity for confusion. With the high transmissibility of the omicron variant, experts say, masking is particularly important. Omicron is estimated to be about 2.7 to 3.7 times more infectious among inoculated people than the delta variant, which rapidly became the world’s dominant strain last summer. While many people are experiencing milder cases with omicron, cases are increasing precipitously, even in highly vaccinated areas. Its ability to dodge antibodies created by the available Covid-19 vaccines means that additional prevention measures — like masks — are now back in the spotlight.

As Abraar Karan, an infectious diseases doctor at Stanford University, explained to New York Magazine in December, cloth masks and face coverings don’t filter aerosols — the particles through which the coronavirus spreads — particularly well; they can escape from an infected person and easily be inhaled if both parties are wearing cloth face coverings.

That means surgical masks and N95 masks are the way to go in 2022, as a recent Wall Street Journal graphic illustrates.

This graphic from the @WSJ is incredibly helpful pic.twitter.com/kQ1YyjOsg7

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) January 5, 2022

N95 respirators in particular are much better at blocking these particles, according to Karan, due to the filter’s structure and the electrostatic charge that attracts and traps the tiny aerosol particles. Just as critically, the filter’s fit over the wearer’s mouth and nose is far better than a cloth mask or face covering, which can leave large gaps on the sides — giving infectious particles ample opportunity to escape.

How can you get the right mask?

The N95 has been the gold standard for masks since the start of the pandemic, and they provide the most protection against Covid-19, including the omicron variant. Now that they’re no longer in critically short supply, they’re also the best option for day-to-day use.

As Karan explained to New York Magazine, the N95’s complex, irregular webbing allows for superior filtration which traps 95 percent of aerosol particles — hence the “95” in N95.

When used in a medical setting, N95s are generally single- use, but for average people in lower-risk settings, they can be reused a limited number of times.

N95 availability was scattershot at best in the beginning of the pandemic, even for health care workers. Now, nearly two years later high-quality options are much more readily available.

Cost is still a potential barrier, however, as N95s generally cost a dollar or two per disposable mask, and counterfeit respirators pose an additional problem, as Anne Miller, executive director of the N95 Project, explained to US News and World Report in December. Nonetheless, Miller told US News, there are some failsafe ways to ensure that the model you are purchasing was manufactured by a reputable company and has passed NIOSH filtration tests.

Specifically, N95 masks should have a TC number — TC, followed by a series of five total numbers, then a lot number. KN95 respirators operate under a similar protocol; all models should have GB 2626 - 2019, followed by a space, then KN95 printed on them if they are produced by a reputable company. According to Miller, lack of a brand name on a mask or a claim on the mask’s packaging that it’s FDA approved or registered with the FDA are major warning signs; those claims are essentially meaningless.

However, high-quality respirators that have been tested for fit and efficacy are available, and doing a few basic tests on masks yourself can help you weed out ineffective models. For one, as the Strategist reported last month, you shouldn’t be able to see light through the mask when you hold it up to a light source, nor should you be able to blow out a flame when wearing the mask. And in terms of fit, the sides should collapse when you breathe in, showing that your mask has an effective seal. If air escapes around the sides of the mask, you need a tighter fit, since aerosols can still flow in or out of the barrier.

If you can’t find an N95 or KN95, which is the Chinese-made equivalent, a surgical mask is quite effective as well, given its multiple layers and irregular weave, which is better at intercepting particles than the regular, uniform weave of cloth masks. Surgical masks aren’t quite as effective as N95 respirators, but they use the same filtration mechanism. Fit is also crucial, since surgical masks don’t have the same structure as N95 masks and don’t mold as well to the nose and mouth area. However, fit can be improved by knotting or twisting the side loops before placing them over your ears for a closer fit.

Despite still-existing barriers like cost and confusing messaging, it’s easier now in 2022 to buy an effective N95 or KN95 respirator that’s comfortable and fits your face. And in combination with Covid-19 vaccines and boosters, which provide strong protection against severe Covid-19, a good-quality, well-fitting mask is one of the best steps you can take to protect yourself as case numbers continue to surge in the US.

John Deere says it will sell self-driving kits separately so that older models can be retrofitted to be autonomous.

John Deere isn’t the only one working on autonomous farming equipment, and it’s not even clear that big self-driving tractors are the best use of the technology. Case has an autonomous tractor concept that doesn’t even have a cab for a human driver, and AGCO, which owns farm equipment brands like Fendt and Massey Ferguson, is testing smaller autonomous machines, including a seed-planting robot that’s the size of a washing machine. DJI, the popular drone maker, now has an entire division devoted to flying farming robots that can help with anything from crop monitoring to targeted pesticide spraying.

A number of researchers think that swarms of smaller machines working together are more promising for a wider range of farmers. Pitla, the Nebraska professor, is working on technology that would replace a single 500-horsepower tractor with 10 50-horsepower tractors. Not only could the swarm better handle different terrain and smaller farms, whose land might not be as uniform as large farms, but if one tractor broke, the rest could keep working.

“I’ve seen farmers doing 18 hours of planting because the weather is perfect, the soil conditions are perfect,” Pitla said. “It’s a very timely operation. So in a way, if you have swarms of these machines, you’re distributing the risk.”

When you consider the fact that the farming industry is facing an ongoing labor shortage, which some say is getting worse, the concept of autonomous farming equipment is even more appealing. That fact could alleviate concerns that automation takes jobs away from humans, but it will likely take years before we understand just how disruptive widespread adoption of automation in agriculture could be to the labor market.

An agricultural drone spraying crops. DJI

The DJI AGRAS T30 can use GPS coordinates to spray specific crops and uses radar to avoid obstacles along the way.

Farmers and technologists alike hope that self-driving tractors and other autonomous farming equipment will usher in an era of greater yields. The driving principle behind precision farming is that by better understanding the soil and addressing issues with crops, we can squeeze more productivity out of the world’s limited amount of farmland without a negative impact on the environment. This factors into a growing debate over whether industrialized agriculture is recklessly profit-driven and exploitative of the land, or if consolidating farms is more efficient. With the proper rollout of autonomous farming technology, we could have it both ways.

“Similar to the autonomous car industry, full autonomy of farm vehicles and equipment can also be considered as an important, if not the ultimate, goal in the agriculture industry,” said Abhisesh Silwal, a project scientist who works on agricultural robots at Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute. He added that automating delicate, time-sensitive tasks like pruning and harvesting, which typically require skilled workers, could help sustainability in the long run.

For now, while researchers make drones and swarm-bots smarter, we’ve got John Deere and its self-driving tractor. Even if it’s not suitable or affordable for every farmer, the new self-driving machine is pushing autonomous agriculture further into the mainstream. And unlike the TV that can display NFTs, this technology can actually help feed the world.

This story was first published in the Recode newsletter. Sign up here so you don’t miss the next one!

Don’t Look Up on what it means for us to lose

The apocalyptic disaster movie — think I Am Legend, Independence Day, 2012, War of the Worlds, The Day After Tomorrow — has its conventions. The hero starts out as an ordinary family man (and yes, it’s almost always a man), but when circumstances demand it, he realizes he has something more than the ordinary inside him. The fate of the world rests on his shoulders, and he’ll save it, or at least salvage something of it for the survivors and the people he loves.

It’s very clearly this genre that Don’t Look Up is in dialogue with, especially in Leonardo DiCaprio’s character’s plot: He begins as an awkward astronomy professor and becomes the face of the comet revelation. Seduced by power and fame, he betrays his wife, and as the world comes to an end he realizes what really matters, making a pilgrimage home to reunite with his family and face his mistakes.

 
Niko Tavernise/Netflix

Toward the end of Don’t Look Up, Randall (Leonardo DiCaprio) travels home to reconcile with his family.

It’s similar to the arc of John Cusack’s character in 2012, who reconciles with his ex as the floods begin to recede, with notes of the poignant reunion the hero of War of the Worlds (played by Tom Cruise) has with his estranged family at the end of the movie. The apocalypse, in this genre convention, is a backdrop for men to realize their mettle, put aside childish things, save their families, save the world, and then choose to live and love in it.

Don’t Look Up is pointedly at odds with that tradition.

The scheme to break apart the comet headed for Earth fails. With humanity facing its doom, the heroes and their loved ones gather around the dinner table and share memories and prayer and family jokes. DiCaprio wins his wife’s forgiveness and gruffly greets his adult children.

And then the comet hits. He, and they, die. Humanity (save for a couple of characters killed off in a closing scene later) is wiped out.

Taking the end of the world seriously

It’s the most serious thing the movie has to say; there are no interjections of the usual Adam McKay silliness interwoven elsewhere (though he does undercut the haunting takeaway with that jokey coda).

Don’t Look Up isn’t about ordinary people who discover inside them the heroism to save the ones they love. It’s about ordinary people who know what’s coming and ultimately aren’t heroes at all. They make a couple of futile attempts to do something, which amount to nothing. And then they die, because that’s what will happen, if we aren’t up to the task ahead of us.

There probably isn’t a comet coming, though with more surveillance we could be a whole lot more secure. But a lot of people who work on existential risks — threats that might plausibly destroy our world — believe that this century will be the most dangerous one in human history. Emerging technologies like AI and synthetic biology make it easier than ever to inadvertently create threats to the entire human species.

Our existing mechanisms for responding to pandemics, let alone to risks we’ve never imagined, aren’t good enough. The power of love won’t preserve the world. There are no adults in the room, and if we don’t become those adults — and maybe even if we do — we could die, and we may destroy our world so completely that nothing will ever grow in the ashes.

As I wrote these words — and as I watched this film — I felt myself flinching away. I don’t want to believe that we are not up to the task of facing existential threats to humanity. I want to believe that everything’s going to turn out okay, that the worst possible outcome can’t actually really happen, for real.

I felt suddenly aware of how often I refuse to glance up at the metaphorical sky lest there’s a comet there, refuse to pick up Toby Ord’s The Precipice, the seminal book on existential risk, lest its pages reveal a danger bearing down on our civilization that no heroes lie in wait to save us from. (Spoiler: The book does, indeed, reveal a whole bunch of them, and argues there is a one-in-six chance one will destroy us this century.)

Don’t Look Up mostly doesn’t know exactly what it’s trying to say. But it knows this, and it captures it perfectly: Humanity is on track to make mistakes we can’t recover from, and we don’t want to look at that, and we don’t know what to do even when we see it.

The point of acknowledging that, of course, isn’t to sink back, self-satisfied, into wise and informed despair. It’s to get us to look up — to look at the threats to our world wherever they’re coming from, and however uncomfortable they are to acknowledge, and then to actually act.

A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!

From The Hindu: Sports

From The Hindu: National News

From BBC: Europe

From Ars Technica

From Jokes Subreddit