No Masks....Would you?

[DouglasR]

100% accurate

Like in Flowers for Algernon, the student has become the teacher.

Point being:
I would just think someone who’s right there on the front lines and pass’s judgment to those who don’t think a 12% increase is reason for alarm would be taking every precaution necessary to mitigate risk of transmission.
Including abstaining from unnecessary travel.


but we all NEED our time at sea

that that is is that that is not

 

[ImBillT]

Right I agree, hence social distancing + masks. I think masks reduce exposure and then there is roulette with whomever you encounter.

Also I think you need to distinguish between masks that you and I wear everyday and hospital PPE procedures. There is a big differences between the mask I put on to go to the grocery store and the PPE you put on before you go into a room with a COVID patient.



As you noted efficacy is different for each, let's just say 95% for discussion. So 5% of people who get COVID have sever symptoms, and 5% of people who get the vaccine get COVID.

So it compounds...

View attachment 178407

That being said, the vaccine offers attenuation of your symptoms, so this ^ table does not reflect reality.

30,000 people received the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, only 1 person in the trial who received the vaccine was hospitalized, no one died.



I agree, if rates were high for years even with a mask you would get it eventually. If every interaction was a .05% chance and you had thousands a year... odds are not in your favor.

Masks and social distancing were purely to slow the spread until there was a vaccine and people were vaccinated.

This virus will likely continue to be prevalent in the world forever, I don't think it's reasonable to think we can eliminate it, I think the CDC, etc are just shooting for dramatic reduction.

I agree with you for the most part.

For the paragraph about rates being high for years-either the rate will be high for a short period, and then we would achieve herd immunity, or the rate would be low for many years, and then we would achieve herd immunity. Masks and social distancing only delay the inevitable.

Obviously the vaccine has the potential to speed the rate at which we achieve herd immunity, and hopefully with less incidence of sever illness. BUT, you said that only 5% of the people who received the vaccine got covid. That’s incorrect. It isn’t how vaccines work, and the logic implied isn’t how we assess illness. Pre-covid, you were never considered ill, unless you presented symptoms. If you receive any vaccine, and are exposed to the virus that the vaccine protects you against, the virus will infect you, and will replicate inside your body. The advantage is that may have circulating antibodies present that antagonize the virus, and reduce the severity of illness or if you do not, your immune system will remember how to make the antibody that worked, and will do so quickly. Therefore, the vaccine did not result in only 5% of people “catching” covid-19. That has nothing at all to do with the vaccine. If you get vaccinated, and get exposed to covid, you’ll still test positive if you get tested at the right time.

If 20% of people who test positive in an unvaccinated population present with symptoms, and 20% of people who test positive in a vaccinated population present with symptoms, what’s the difference?

I would expect vaccination to significantly reduce severe symptoms and death.

 

[3855WIN]

Ready to go without a mask in a restaurant.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree with you for the most part.

For the paragraph about rates being high for years-either the rate will be high for a short period, and then we would achieve herd immunity, or the rate would be low for many years, and then we would achieve herd immunity. Masks and social distancing only delay the inevitable.

Obviously the vaccine has the potential to speed the rate at which we achieve herd immunity, and hopefully with less incidence of sever illness. BUT, you said that only 5% of the people who receive the vaccine get covid. That’s incorrect. It isn’t how vaccines work, and the logic implied isn’t how we assess illness. Pre-covid, you were never considered ill, unless you presented symptoms. If you receive any vaccine, and are exposed to the virus that the vaccine protects you against, the virus will infect you, and will replicate inside your body. The advantage is that may have circulating antibodies present that antagonize the virus, and reduce the severity of illness or if you do not, your immune system will remember how to make the antibody that worked, and will do so quickly. Therefore, the vaccine did not result in only 5% of people “catching” covid-19. That has nothing at all to do with the vaccine.

"Vaccine efficacy/effectiveness is interpreted as the proportionate reduction in disease among the vaccinated group. So a VE of 90% indicates a 90% reduction in disease occurrence among the vaccinated group, or a 90% reduction from the number of cases you would expect if they have not been vaccinated."

Principles of Epidemiology | Lesson 3 - Section 6

www.cdc.gov

That's what I'm going off of

 

[Stretcher_Jockey]

As the saber rattling continues, could someone explain how a mask will stop the virus from leaving the host, but it won’t protect you from getting it?

How can the mask be one-way?

Google is a magical tool. Even though I know it won’t change your mind, I’ll bite. Here ya go. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/4...s-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

 

[ImBillT]

"Vaccine efficacy/effectiveness is interpreted as the proportionate reduction in disease among the vaccinated group. So a VE of 90% indicates a 90% reduction in disease occurrence among the vaccinated group, or a 90% reduction from the number of cases you would expect if they have not been vaccinated."

Principles of Epidemiology | Lesson 3 - Section 6

www.cdc.gov

That's what I'm going off of

Well that’s definitely different from 90% don’t get it.