The Vaccine Thread

[Sino]

Such an impressive character trait.

SPP

Yet you had reply with an insult...so what's that say about you?

[j44ke]

I like all the pretty lugs!

That I don't even remotely agree with most of your opinions is a small issue. You seem to take the internet far more seriously that I do I guess. I find it mildly cathartic to argue different opinions, and also mildly amusing to see how extremely unaccepting and intolerant the modern liberal is of anything "other". Just so much fear of everything.

I am pretty sure that some of the people here who disagree with you are not liberals. As for the rest of the above - are you saying that you are arguing here simply for the sake of instigating a reaction from other people for your own amusement?

[johnmdesigner]

They’re grinding the brick grout outside my apartment.
So I’m wearing a mask all the time.
And self medicating with a Negroni.
4 parts gin.
1 part Campari.
1 part Vermouth.

[bcm119]

A dust mask is far more hermetic than the average mask people are wearing these days. If you want to do the test with the average mask, worn by the average American, you'll find a healthy amount of sawdust up your nose when you take it off. Plus, when you take it off, guess what? Saw dust on your face now.

If gov wants to provide n95 masks, and people sanitize every single time they touch something, along with 6ft apart, then that would be a different story. But the surgical and fabric masks that the overwhelming majority of people wear, and the manner they are worn, are pretty much worthless- hot spot places that never went unmasked like DC, NYC, and LA all prove it. Might as well mandate magic fairy dust. It's a dumb window dressing that clearly doesn't work.

Again, real world vs. make believe.

The fact that largely pro-mask metro areas had virus spikes does not "prove" that masks don't work. There were no control metro areas under the same conditions sans masks to determine the effect of masks. Without a control, we have no idea how much worse it could have been without masks. Surely you're smart enough to realize this, so your assertion seems highly biased.

Your real world vs. make believe analogy is far too binary to be of any use. Of course many people don't wear masks properly. Almost no one's mask seals around their face 100%, and probably more than half fit terribly and are essentially useless. But infection risk is about exposure over time, and even a poorly fitting mask filters some of the air you breath, lengthening the time required to inhale enough virus to become infected. Masks are not perfect by a long shot, but public health 101 suggests that encouraging or mandating masks and educating about proper use is going to mitigate the virus to some extent, and every life counts. I would agree that the messaging could be more nuanced and put more emphasis on proper use rather than drawing a bright line between mask/no mask... but to use your 'real world' perspective, the public's capacity for understanding nuance is low, and the mask/no mask decision is the most important message to communicate.

[beeatnik]

The fact that largely pro-mask metro areas had virus spikes does not "prove" that masks don't work. There were no control metro areas under the same conditions sans masks to determine the effect of masks. Without a control, we have no idea how much worse it could have been without masks. Surely you're smart enough to realize this, so your assertion seems highly biased.

Stockholm is a control.

[Sino]

As for the rest of the above - are you saying that you are arguing here simply for the sake of instigating a reaction from other people for your own amusement?

No, I'm saying a healthy debate is good exercise for the brain.

[Sino]

Stockholm is a control.

Stockholm, Florida, Texas...all controls.

When Texas did away with masks (what was that, about five or six months now?) the liberal Twitterverse went berserk, saying they were murders, etc...and guess what, absolutely nothing happened. In fact, they had lower rates than just about any state.

In Europe the measures in many countries were extreme...they had death rates much higher than we ever had in the US.

[bcm119]

Stockholm is a control.

Come on. You know there are far too many variables in a virus outbreak to consider any other city a control. How the virus is introduced to the population, the demographics, the public messaging, the climate, the density of housing, the workplace culture and industry, city geography, cultural practices, family demographics. You just got done telling us the real world is more complex than a scientific model, and now you're arguing a city in another country around the world is a legitimate control point. Your bias is showing.

[Sino]

The fact that largely pro-mask metro areas had virus spikes does not "prove" that masks don't work. There were no control metro areas under the same conditions sans masks to determine the effect of masks. Without a control, we have no idea how much worse it could have been without masks. Surely you're smart enough to realize this, so your assertion seems highly biased.

Your real world vs. make believe analogy is far too binary to be of any use. Of course many people don't wear masks properly. Almost no one's mask seals around their face 100%, and probably more than half fit terribly and are essentially useless. But infection risk is about exposure over time, and even a poorly fitting mask filters some of the air you breath, lengthening the time required to inhale enough virus to become infected. Masks are not perfect by a long shot, but public health 101 suggests that encouraging or mandating masks and educating about proper use is going to mitigate the virus to some extent, and every life counts. I would agree that the messaging could be more nuanced and put more emphasis on proper use rather than drawing a bright line between mask/no mask... but to use your 'real world' perspective, the public's capacity for understanding nuance is low, and the mask/no mask decision is the most important message to communicate.

There are, were, and have been plenty of "control" cities. Aerosols are one possible way the virus spreads. Touching presents far greater quantities of the virus than breathing does though, unless somebody sneezes in your face or something.

So the likelihood of an infected person, who now has to touch their face, spreading it to another person, who also now has to touch their face, increases dramatically, whereas simply social distancing is a far more effective way to not inhale any pathogen.

Again, the laws of physics show that breathing with a mask filters nothing if there is not a strong hermetic seal. The air just goes around. If the fabric is so open that air can actually flow through it easily, then it's not filtering anything either.

A mask, as with virtually any PPE, ill designed and used half-assed, is a full failure. In fact, beyond a full failure, as I've already said, it's likely not even neutral, but detrimental because of the face touching.

[Sino]

Come on. You know there are far too many variables in a virus outbreak to consider any other city a control. How the virus is introduced to the population, the demographics, the public messaging, the climate, the density of housing, the workplace culture and industry, city geography, cultural practices, family demographics. You just got done telling us the real world is more complex than a scientific model, and now you're arguing a city in another country around the world is a legitimate control point. Your bias is showing.

Are you really suggesting that there must be two absolutely identical cities for the example to be valid? Talk about bias, and again, dream land theory vs. real world.

[BBB]

No, I'm saying a healthy debate is good exercise for the brain.

Except much of this shouldn't really be a debate.

Vaccinations are routine and have been for many, many years. And they obviously play an important role in public health- see vaccines for whooping cough, polio and so on. I fail to see why there should be a "healthy" (no pun intended I assume) debate in this instance. Yes the vaccines have been developed quickly, but a combination of teams of very bright cookies coming up with solutions, pharmaceutical companies not wanting to be sued, governments promoting vaccines not wanting to be voted out and the safety net of regulators (they were subject to criticism in Australia for taking their time on giving vaccines the green light) has lead to vaccines being available that present minimal health risk to the public.

I'm not sure what the big deal about masks is either. True the issue of proper use and their efficiency when not used properly is real, but governments are getting unbiased advice from epidemiologists, that masks, particularly when used indoors, reduce risk factors. Yes they are a bit annoying, but my view on that is suck it up princess. I fail to see where the debate is here. For masks to become a political issue is just dumb - see Trump's White House/Supreme Court/Super Spreader Event last year for a good example of "I'm with Stupid" at work.

A public health emergency should not be a political thing. All of us should be wanting life to get back to some normal footing. We don't want people dying or put in critical care in hospitals, we don't want lockdowns, we don't want businesses to suffer, we don't want people to lose their jobs, we don't want uncertainties and so on. Vaccines and mask usage will help get us back on the path to normality. This presumably is what we all want.

[bcm119]

There are, were, and have been plenty of "control" cities. Aerosols are one possible way the virus spreads. Touching presents far greater quantities of the virus than breathing does though, unless somebody sneezes in your face or something.

So the likelihood of an infected person, who now has to touch their face, spreading it to another person, who also now has to touch their face, increases dramatically, whereas simply social distancing is a far more effective way to not inhale any pathogen.

Again, the laws of physics show that breathing with a mask filters nothing if there is not a strong hermetic seal. The air just goes around. If the fabric is so open that air can actually flow through it easily, then it's not filtering anything either.

A mask, as with virtually any PPE, ill designed and used half-assed, is a full failure. In fact, beyond a full failure, as I've already said, it's likely not even neutral, but detrimental because of the face touching.

I thought this was you fighting elite liberals, but it seems to simply be a case of working with the wrong facts.

Multiple studies have shown the virus is transmitted by aerosols far more than by touching surfaces. That's why outbreaks happen in closed social gatherings, where everyone is breathing common air for a prolonged period. The virus only lasts a few minutes on skin and porous surfaces, and hasn't been shown to infect via the mouth/digestive tract, only respiratory.

Masks are designed to allow air to pass through easily while filtering small particles. When you inhale inside the mask and create a vacuum, unless there is a gaping hole, much of the air that rushes in to fill the vacuum will pass through the mask filter, even if the seal isn't perfect. That's because there's enough surface area of mask material and low enough resistance that only some air will bypass it around the edges. That's why N95s and KN95s are recommended over cloth, because they are designed to filter small particles while allowing air to pass through easily. Even if 50% of the air bypasses the filter, that doubles the time it would take to inhale an infectious amount of virus. Very helpful if you're running in to a store for a few minutes.

[bcm119]

Are you really suggesting that there must be two absolutely identical cities for the example to be valid? Talk about bias, and again, dream land theory vs. real world.

You have such high standards for concluding masks work, and such low standards for proving they don't. That's called bias.

[Sino]

For masks to become a political issue is just dumb - see Trump's White House/Supreme Court/Super Spreader Event last year for a good example of "I'm with Stupid" at work.

Seems like you're calling yourself dumb here?

Anyhow, the statement was in general, in response to another post, not specifically in regards to either the vaccine or masks.

I would point out that mRNA vaccines are not routine, and the Pfizer and Moderna are the very first of their kind to even go through Phase 2 testing, let alone a complete testing regiment, which is still not complete. J&J on the other hand was developed from more "routine" methods fwiw.

[Sino]

You have such high standards for concluding masks work, and such low standards for proving they don't. That's called bias.

And vice versa with you...point?

[monadnocky]

Are you really suggesting that there must be two absolutely identical cities for the example to be valid? Talk about bias, and again, dream land theory vs. real world.

I've been following this thread with interest, while I do find most of the various posts and opinions worth reading, I've got to say, please stop with the attitude of "I'm the only person who can discern truth and the rest of you are living in a fantasy land" (in other thread(s), it usually includes something along the lines of liberal fantasy or something like that). It's not a good look, and it's not a good argument, and it's a complete and total turnoff for anyone trying to take your points seriously (and for what it's worth, I am).

I've been here for a few years - enough to know that there are a lot of very smart people on this forum. Most, by far, aren't living in some Berkley bubble. I've been taken down in size more than once - politely - by several of them, and my respect for them is well-earned, over a long period of time. I'd suggest that you practice some patience in this regard to get the most out of your experience here, but hey, that's just my opinion. I'm not trying to moderate. Just offering my opinion.

Also, the political views on this forum are pretty diverse. OK, I would generally - generally - agree that they tend to lean left. That tends to happen with (generally speaking) college-educated people who own $8,000 custom bikes. But there's a lot of diversity even within this group that you, for whatever reason, can't grasp; more than anyone here, you yourself seem obsessed with the whole idea of the "liberal bubble" or "dream land vs. real world."

I have no idea what you're talking about with this language, and it's not conducive towards persuading anyone regarding what you're arguing.

Everyone here lives in a very, very real world and to imply otherwise is completely insulting.

[Sino]

I thought this was you fighting elite liberals, but it seems to simply be a case of working with the wrong facts.

Multiple studies have shown the virus is transmitted by aerosols far more than by touching surfaces. That's why outbreaks happen in closed social gatherings, where everyone is breathing common air for a prolonged period. The virus only lasts a few minutes on skin and porous surfaces, and hasn't been shown to infect via the mouth/digestive tract, only respiratory.

Masks are designed to allow air to pass through easily while filtering small particles. When you inhale inside the mask and create a vacuum, unless there is a gaping hole, much of the air that rushes in to fill the vacuum will pass through the mask filter, even if the seal isn't perfect. That's because there's enough surface area of mask material and low enough resistance that only some air will bypass it around the edges. That's why N95s and KN95s are recommended over cloth, because they are designed to filter small particles while allowing air to pass through easily. Even if 50% of the air bypasses the filter, that doubles the time it would take to inhale an infectious amount of virus. Very helpful if you're running in to a store for a few minutes.

Taken directly from WHO, so either theyre wrong or you are:

How is the virus that causes COVID-19 most commonly transmitted between people?

Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 spreads between people through direct, indirect (through contaminated objects or surfaces), or close contact with infected people via mouth and nose secretions. These include saliva, respiratory secretions or secretion droplets. These are released from the mouth or nose when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks or sings, for example. People who are in close contact (within 1 metre) with an infected person can catch COVID-19 when those infectious droplets get into their mouth, nose or eyes.

To avoid contact with these droplets, it is important to stay at least 1 metre away from others, clean hands frequently, and cover the mouth with a tissue or bent elbow when sneezing or coughing. Cleaning hands frequently is also critical.

As you said yourself, proximity is far more important than any other factor, I think everyone agrees with that. My point was about concentration of the virus. Touching saliva will result in receiving many hundreds of times more of the virus than a breath from someone at a reasonable (social) distance. The aerosol theory has been also shown to not be very transmissive because there simply aren't the concentrations of virus that can be suspended in the air.

[BBB]

Seems like you're calling yourself dumb here?

Not at all. They chose not wearing masks as some form of political stance and a number of people at that event ended up with Covid as a result. That is just dumb.

[Todd Amunrud]

Taken directly from WHO, so either their wrong or you are:

How is the virus that causes COVID-19 most commonly transmitted between people?

Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 spreads between people through direct, indirect (through contaminated objects or surfaces), or close contact with infected people via mouth and nose secretions. These include saliva, respiratory secretions or secretion droplets. These are released from the mouth or nose when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks or sings, for example. People who are in close contact (within 1 metre) with an infected person can catch COVID-19 when those infectious droplets get into their mouth, nose or eyes.

To avoid contact with these droplets, it is important to stay at least 1 metre away from others, clean hands frequently, and cover the mouth with a tissue or bent elbow when sneezing or coughing. Cleaning hands frequently is also critical.

As you said yourself, proximity is far more important than any other factor, I think everyone agrees with that. My point was about concentration of the virus. Touching saliva will result in receiving many hundreds of times more of the virus than a breath from someone at a reasonable (social) distance. The aerosol theory has been also shown to not be very transmissive because there simply aren't the concentrations of virus that can be suspended in the air.

Also taken directly from the WHO

Given that infected people without symptoms can transmit the virus, it is also prudent to encourage the use of fabric face masks in public places where there is community transmission[1] and where other prevention measures, such as physical distancing, are not possible.(12) Fabric masks, if made and worn properly, can serve as a barrier to droplets expelled from the wearer into the air and environment.(12) However, masks must be used as part of a comprehensive package of preventive measures, which includes frequent hand hygiene, physical distancing when possible, respiratory etiquette, environmental cleaning and disinfection. Recommended precautions also include avoiding indoor crowded gatherings as much as possible, in particular when physical distancing is not feasible, and ensuring good environmental ventilation in any closed setting. (92, 93)

[bcm119]

Taken directly from WHO, so either their wrong or you are:

How is the virus that causes COVID-19 most commonly transmitted between people?

Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 spreads between people through direct, indirect (through contaminated objects or surfaces), or close contact with infected people via mouth and nose secretions. These include saliva, respiratory secretions or secretion droplets. These are released from the mouth or nose when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks or sings, for example. People who are in close contact (within 1 metre) with an infected person can catch COVID-19 when those infectious droplets get into their mouth, nose or eyes.

To avoid contact with these droplets, it is important to stay at least 1 metre away from others, clean hands frequently, and cover the mouth with a tissue or bent elbow when sneezing or coughing. Cleaning hands frequently is also critical.

As you said yourself, proximity is far more important than any other factor, I think everyone agrees with that. My point was about concentration of the virus. Touching saliva will result in receiving many hundreds of times more of the virus than a breath from someone at a reasonable (social) distance. The aerosol theory has been also shown to not be very transmissive because there simply aren't the concentrations of virus that can be suspended in the air.

The WHO stuff is fairly outdated in terms of the messaging about transmission. I would refer to the CDC for the latest transmission science brief:
Current evidence strongly suggests transmission from contaminated surfaces does not contribute substantially to new infections.