It seems that the CDC has revised the mask requirements FOR THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR SHOTS (and waited the 2 weeks).
I am fully vaccinated, but I dont trust that the rest of my area has taken the same steps for the good of society. I dont go out often, but when I do, I see too many people still not wearing masks. I hear lots of news about the drop in the number getting vaccinated in my area. I fear that those that were going to get vaccinated have done so, and the rest are unwilling to be so.
The bottom line is that I dont trust that those NOT wearing a mask have been vaccinated.
So I am going to wait a while before I venture out unmasked or risk my life to eat inside a restaurant.
What are your thoughts?
Are you vaccinated? Do you trust your neighbors to act responsibly? Will you wear a mask or not (and why)?
Discuss
1. They're rushing things. Can't we wait until the grand July 4th target date for "end of pandemic in US?"
2. They're pressuring people to get vaccinated. Biden Tweet: "The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do. The choice is yours."
This "rule" doesn't sound good. What about those who can't get the vaccine for health reasons? Tough luck?!
How about the Ohio vaccine bribes? Five $1 million lottery prizes and five full-ride scholarships to
an Ohio college. Funding from "unused federal Covid relief funds." What might that $5 million be used for otherwise? What about the good folks who feverishly searched for appts and got vaxxed early on? No lottery entries? You can't reason with adults based on credible data? You must bribe them?
3. They say decisions are science based yet don't release ample, relevant data.
4. Some scientists are criticizing CDC messaging/behavior. March 29, it was "impending doom." A couple weeks ago, "no masks outdoors." Now, "no masks! (for vaccinated) but Biden will continue wearing his due to age."
QuoteThe bottom line is that I dont trust that those NOT wearing a mask have been vaccinated.
Strangely, I agree with Clean on this. :-)
For those of us fully vaccinated, the risk of becoming infected is low even without masks. Wearing a mask lessens that risk a tiny bit more. Since wearing a mask is not high cost to me, I will continue to wear a mask.
That's personal health. As for public health,
QuoteThey are trying to pressure people to get vaccinated. Biden Tweet: "The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do. The choice is yours."
That's trying to entice, not to pressure. Problem is that it's not enforceable.
QuoteHow about the Ohio vaccine bribes? Five $1 million lottery prizes and five full-ride scholarships to
an Ohio college. Funding from "unused federal Covid relief funds."
And why not? It could save others' lives.
QuoteWhat about the good folks who feverishly searched for appointments and got their vax early on? No lottery entries?
That's an "I want more because its unfair" argument, not helpful for public health. Others' vaccinations protect me.
I wish there were clearer guidance for those of us who are vaccinated but live with vulnerable people who cannot be, particularly those of us in areas still seeing a fair amount of transmission and vaccine hesitancy. While the available evidence on transmission to and from vaccinated people is highly encouraging (i.e., it's relatively rare in both cases), local conditions are still important. The more people around who are infectious and mingling, the greater the likelihood of those individually rare events happening. I plan to continue to wear a mask and avoid prolonged indoor exposures and large crowds for the time being. Then again, I'm fairly risk-averse and have an unvaccinated person in my household to worry about.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2021, 03:58:37 PMWhat about the good folks who feverishly searched for appts and got vaxxed early on? No lottery entries?
Setting aside the issues of what else the money could have been used for and whether a tiny chance to win a large amount is more or less enticing to those who remain hesitant about vaccination than a guaranteed $25 gift card to the grocery store or a beer (New Jersey) or a $100 savings bond (WV)...
Those who were vaccinated earlier
are eligible for the lottery:
Quote from: Cincinnati EnquirerThe winners will be pulled from the Ohio secretary of state's voter registration database.
[...]
To be eligible, you must be 18 or older, an Ohio resident and vaccinated before the drawing. Further details about the lottery, including whether taxes would be owed on winnings, were not available Wednesday night.
DeWine said 12- to 17-year-olds can sign up for the scholarship drawing via an electronic portal that will open May 18. Drawings will be held for five straight Wednesdays to select one student to receive the scholarship, which will cover tuition, room-and-board and books.
If you live with people who aren't vaccinated and/or particularly vulnerable, it is up to you to protect them by wearing a mask, being careful how you socialize, etc. I know this isn't nice, but I don't care much for those who don't want it get vaccinated or can't be bothered to go to one of many local pharmacies. I certainly shouldn't have to wear a mask for them.
I just don't think you can expect vaccinated people to continue to be restricted indefinitely.
Seems premature to me, since there's no easy way to check the unmasked have been vaccinated, and since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Plus, since the guidance still requires masks for public transit and other such activities, it's bound to cause confusion.p
Quote from: Mobius on May 13, 2021, 05:56:36 PM
I just don't think you can expect vaccinated people to continue to be restricted indefinitely.
Is the expectation that it's 'indefinitely', or that it's until things are well in hand as measured by some clearly-defined goal (e.g percentage of population vaccinated)?
We've seen the effects of half-assing it and lifting restrictions too early time and time again, after all. I get it, we're all really done with it all. I don't think that's a great reason to be incautious, however.
At some level this comes down to a potential Darwin Awards situation for each individual.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:04:34 PM
Seems premature to me, since there's no easy way to check the unmasked have been vaccinated, and since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Transmission of virus by vaccinated is something we need more data on. 8 cases of vaccinated NY Yankee player/staff testing positive for Covid this week, 1 symptomatic. They need to study these cases. Bill Maher, vaccinated, he/staff do weekly PCR tests, he tested positive, asymptomatic.
How many asymptomatic vaccinated people are there and can they transmit to other vaccinated and nonvaccinated people?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:08:24 PM
We've seen the effects of half-assing it and lifting restrictions too early time and time again, after all. I get it, we're all really done with it all. I don't think that's a great reason to be incautious, however.
Especially after so many have sacrificed way too much (including their lives) for so long, why throw in the towel abruptly?
QuoteHow many asymptomatic vaccinated people are there and can they transmit to other vaccinated and nonvaccinated people?
CDC does not give numbers. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html)
I go around with a mask, very low cost.
Quote from: dismalist on May 13, 2021, 06:33:14 PM
QuoteHow many asymptomatic vaccinated people are there and can they transmit to other vaccinated and nonvaccinated people?
CDC does not give numbers. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html)
I go around with a mask, very low cost.
That link says: "CDC will continue to evaluate and update public health recommendations for fully vaccinated people....information on evidence and considerations related to these recommendations is available in the Science Brief."
Science Brief says: "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing."
and
"Taking steps towards relaxing certain measures for vaccinated people may help improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake."
I'm very surprised. I was thinking (hoping) that the time to remove the masks was when the youngest children were vaccinated.
Wearing a mask in a grocery store or when I'm in a campus situation with unvaxed is no cost to me for the next several months while we round out getting kids vaccinated, remaining adults who want it, etc..
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:04:34 PM
since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Actually, we have pretty good data on this now-- see here for summary: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
Key data point is Pfizer (and would expect Moderna to be about the same given their similarity), 94% protection against *asymptomatic* infection 2 weeks after second dose, and 4x lower viral load even in those who did test positive (meaning even in those rare cases transmission is probably even rarer).
Quote from: Puget on May 13, 2021, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:04:34 PM
since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Actually, we have pretty good data on this now-- see here for summary: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
Key data point is Pfizer (and would expect Moderna to be about the same given their similarity), 94% protection against *asymptomatic* infection 2 weeks after second dose, and 4x lower viral load even in those who did test positive (meaning even in those rare cases transmission is probably even rarer).
Thanks.
Quote from: Puget on May 13, 2021, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:04:34 PM
since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Actually, we have pretty good data on this now-- see here for summary: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
Key data point is Pfizer (and would expect Moderna to be about the same given their similarity), 94% protection against *asymptomatic* infection 2 weeks after second dose, and 4x lower viral load even in those who did test positive (meaning even in those rare cases transmission is probably even rarer).
Thanks Puget. The viral load info seems important. CDC says that's "prelim data from Israel."
From same brief: "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and
potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing." Italics are mine.
CDC vaccine breakthrough data (they acknowledge incompleteness): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
"As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021."
After two treatments, I am now fully neutered. It's safe for people to socialize.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2021, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: Puget on May 13, 2021, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:04:34 PM
since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Actually, we have pretty good data on this now-- see here for summary: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
Key data point is Pfizer (and would expect Moderna to be about the same given their similarity), 94% protection against *asymptomatic* infection 2 weeks after second dose, and 4x lower viral load even in those who did test positive (meaning even in those rare cases transmission is probably even rarer).
Thanks Puget. The viral load info seems important. CDC says that's "prelim data from Israel."
From same brief: "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing." Italics are mine.
CDC vaccine breakthrough data (they acknowledge incompleteness): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
"As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021."
My read of their messaging throughout is to take the usual level of caution of scientists interpreting data (already pretty high) and then multiply it by about 10 to get where the CDC is. It's not just risk aversion-- they also resisted evidence for a long time that masks reduce transmission and that aerosol transmission happens-- they are just consistently several months behind the science curve. When all is said and done the culture there will need some examining (imagine if the CDC rather than FDA were in charge of approving vaccines-- they might still be saying there was "emerging evidence" that they work!).
In other news, I had my second dose yesterday and am happy(?) to report I'm experiencing a very robust immune response today. I'm taking the day off in the theory that the students don't want me grading their papers in my current state. Thinking about what a privilege that is and that the best thing we could do for those who are not vaccine resistant but haven't been vaccinated yet (and apparently there are ~30 million in the US still, primarily minority low-wage workers) is guarantee the paid time off for vaccination and recovery.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2021, 06:15:56 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 13, 2021, 06:04:34 PM
Seems premature to me, since there's no easy way to check the unmasked have been vaccinated, and since we don't have great information on how much the vaccinated can transfer the virus.
Transmission of virus by vaccinated is something we need more data on. 8 cases of vaccinated NY Yankee player/staff testing positive for Covid this week, 1 symptomatic. They need to study these cases. Bill Maher, vaccinated, he/staff do weekly PCR tests, he tested positive, asymptomatic.
How many asymptomatic vaccinated people are there and can they transmit to other vaccinated and nonvaccinated people?
I wouldn't draw a lot of inferences from sporadic cases like this. A lot of people have been vaccinated so we should actually expect to hear about rare events where prominent people have breakthrough infections, it doesn't mean we have to reevaluate everything.
The Yankees case sounds alarming, but remember we don't know how many people were exposed. Chances are, a lot of people who would have gotten infected, didn't because they were vaccinated.
There's also reason to suspect that when vaccinated people get an asymptomatic infection, they aren't likely to transmit the virus to anyone else. So, it could well be that the take away from this is that one person had a mild breakthrough infection and the vaccines effectively prevented it from spreading or getting anyone else sick.
Once the vaccine has set in there is a very low probability of catching covid and an extremely low probability of hospitalization. The risk is that you could still possibly transmit covid to somebody who isn't vaccinated, so if you have non-vaccinated people in your circle then it is probably wise to keep wearing the mask. However, if you and everyone else in your household/social circle have been vaccinated, then being maskless inside a restaurant, theater, or classroom is fairly low risk.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 14, 2021, 07:01:11 AM
Once the vaccine has set in there is a very low probability of catching covid and an extremely low probability of hospitalization. The risk is that you could still possibly transmit covid to somebody who isn't vaccinated, so if you have non-vaccinated people in your circle then it is probably wise to keep wearing the mask. However, if you and everyone else in your household/social circle have been vaccinated, then being maskless inside a restaurant, theater, or classroom is fairly low risk.
I hadn't thought about the classroom for this. At the moment, none of this makes any difference to me since my state still has mask requirements for indoor public spaces. If those requirements go away, I might decide to keep wearing a mask indoors until cases go down substantially. I actually find wearing a mask a lot more annoying in outdoor spaces than indoors.
I would really prefer not to wear a mask in the classroom next fall, however.
Quote from: clean on May 13, 2021, 03:42:42 PM
The bottom line is that I dont trust that those NOT wearing a mask have been vaccinated.
Agree. Most people in my region who are not vaccinated also think masks are stupid. Mask mandates in my state are already lifted, but 50% of the people in the town where I live have chosen not to wear masks since we moved here. Now they will just lie if challenged.
Mask-wearing signals to me that the wearer is willing to make a small effort for the health of those with whom the wearer comes into contact. I loosely expect a mask-wearer also to be a hand-washer and to be aware of ways to minimize risks to others. While I may no longer wear masks in small groups of vaccinated people, I will continue to wear my mask in public places so that the people who are concerned can feel better protected. Why should my facial comfort trump their emotional comfort?
AR.
Quote from: AvidReader on May 14, 2021, 08:59:42 AM
Quote from: clean on May 13, 2021, 03:42:42 PM
The bottom line is that I dont trust that those NOT wearing a mask have been vaccinated.
Agree. Most people in my region who are not vaccinated also think masks are stupid. Mask mandates in my state are already lifted, but 50% of the people in the town where I live have chosen not to wear masks since we moved here. Now they will just lie if challenged.
Mask-wearing signals to me that the wearer is willing to make a small effort for the health of those with whom the wearer comes into contact. I loosely expect a mask-wearer also to be a hand-washer and to be aware of ways to minimize risks to others. While I may no longer wear masks in small groups of vaccinated people, I will continue to wear my mask in public places so that the people who are concerned can feel better protected. Why should my facial comfort trump their emotional comfort?
AR.
+1
I'm still wearing a mask on the rare times I go out--i.e., to run errands and do a quick shopping at 7 AM every other week.
The rest of the time, I'm still staying inside, teaching online, and getting work done.
I neither want to get or give anything untoward to anyone.
"Mask" is not a four-letter word in my book.
M.
Quote from: AvidReader on May 14, 2021, 08:59:42 AM
Mask-wearing signals to me that the wearer is willing to make a small effort for the health of those with whom the wearer comes into contact. I loosely expect a mask-wearer also to be a hand-washer and to be aware of ways to minimize risks to others. While I may no longer wear masks in small groups of vaccinated people, I will continue to wear my mask in public places so that the people who are concerned can feel better protected. Why should my facial comfort trump their emotional comfort?
AR.
Make have become a symbol because of how partisan and politicized COVID measures have become. I think it would be good if we could get away from that. Masks are just a tool. I tend to think it makes sense to keep mask mandates for everyone in indoor spaces till cases get lower, but that's just about the practicalities of enforcement. Masks don't have to be a symbol of concern for others when getting vaccinated means they are no longer necessary.
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2021, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on May 14, 2021, 08:59:42 AM
Mask-wearing signals to me that the wearer is willing to make a small effort for the health of those with whom the wearer comes into contact. I loosely expect a mask-wearer also to be a hand-washer and to be aware of ways to minimize risks to others. While I may no longer wear masks in small groups of vaccinated people, I will continue to wear my mask in public places so that the people who are concerned can feel better protected. Why should my facial comfort trump their emotional comfort?
AR.
Make have become a symbol because of how partisan and politicized COVID measures have become. I think it would be good if we could get away from that. Masks are just a tool. I tend to think it makes sense to keep mask mandates for everyone in indoor spaces till cases get lower, but that's just about the practicalities of enforcement. Masks don't have to be a symbol of concern for others when getting vaccinated means they are no longer necessary.
I think the CDC advice would be reasonable if there were not a human and political element. If everyone did what they were told, theid advice seems sound, but with this decree everyone who wants to go maskless can do so with impunity. Of course, if people all did what they were told this wouldn't be the problem that it is...
What I find odd with all of this is that the US is acting like it is over when there are still over 700 deaths per day. I am in Canada and our media is also acting as if this is over in the US and raging up here even though our per capita death count is still lower (although our per capita case count is currently higher). I guess it is just a matter of relative numbers, but even though the numbers down there are heading in the right direction they are still not great.
Quote from: Kron3007 on May 14, 2021, 10:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2021, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: AvidReader on May 14, 2021, 08:59:42 AM
Mask-wearing signals to me that the wearer is willing to make a small effort for the health of those with whom the wearer comes into contact. I loosely expect a mask-wearer also to be a hand-washer and to be aware of ways to minimize risks to others. While I may no longer wear masks in small groups of vaccinated people, I will continue to wear my mask in public places so that the people who are concerned can feel better protected. Why should my facial comfort trump their emotional comfort?
AR.
Make have become a symbol because of how partisan and politicized COVID measures have become. I think it would be good if we could get away from that. Masks are just a tool. I tend to think it makes sense to keep mask mandates for everyone in indoor spaces till cases get lower, but that's just about the practicalities of enforcement. Masks don't have to be a symbol of concern for others when getting vaccinated means they are no longer necessary.
I think the CDC advice would be reasonable if there were not a human and political element. If everyone did what they were told, theid advice seems sound, but with this decree everyone who wants to go maskless can do so with impunity. Of course, if people all did what they were told this wouldn't be the problem that it is...
The CDC isn't actually changing anything in terms of local regulations, or even recommending those regulations be changed. The advice applies just to individuals. That said, it might have some effect on those regulations, so I see your point.
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2021, 10:40:35 AM
The CDC isn't actually changing anything in terms of local regulations, or even recommending those regulations be changed. The advice applies just to individuals. That said, it might have some effect on those regulations, so I see your point.
Today, it's reportedly causing confusion/problems in retail outlets, restaurants, etc. as state and local guidance has not yet been aligned with the new CDC guidance and not all states/localities/businesses may align.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 10:55:49 AM
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2021, 10:40:35 AM
The CDC isn't actually changing anything in terms of local regulations, or even recommending those regulations be changed. The advice applies just to individuals. That said, it might have some effect on those regulations, so I see your point.
Today, it's reportedly causing confusion/problems in retail outlets, restaurants, etc. as state and local guidance has not yet been aligned with the new CDC guidance and not all states/localities/businesses may align.
The messaging may have gotten screwed up, but it wasn't intended as advice to governments about mask mandates. It was advice to individuals.
Folks are right that you can't trust others who aren't wearing masks to be vaccinated, but you still aren't in much danger if you, yourself, are vaccinated. Those people who are unvaccinated may get sick, but if they are out unvaccinated with no mask then isn't it really on them at this point?
QuoteThose people who are unvaccinated may get sick, but if they are out unvaccinated with no mask then isn't it really on them at this point?
While I am CURRENTLY protected against COVID, there are variants that are created every day. It is the unmistakable nature of a virus. Those that are accepting the risk of infection are not acting against their own health risks alone/in isolation. They may well get sick and develop an inoculation resistant variant, ro spread one that is out there already. As the monitoring system is reactive, not proactive, we wont KNOW if there is a vaccine avoiding variant Until it reaches a level that it can be detected... And by then, it will spread quickly as even those vaccinated are no longer immune OR taking their own precautions, we will back to where we were over a year ago! We will be facing what India is facing today.
So these 'decision maker' are in effect the weakest links for our societal health. We can not, as a whole, be healthy when there are reluctant people INVITING infection!
As I have said before, sometimes I just want to root for the virus to 'eliminate the surplus population' if idiots and assholes that unilaterally make decisions that impact the health of ALL of us!
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 14, 2021, 12:24:23 PM
Folks are right that you can't trust others who aren't wearing masks to be vaccinated, but you still aren't in much danger if you, yourself, are vaccinated. Those people who are unvaccinated may get sick, but if they are out unvaccinated with no mask then isn't it really on them at this point?
Children below age 12 cannot get vaccinated. So they must wear masks and be careful when around people who are not masked.
Vulnerable seniors with co-morbidities are not fully protected by vaccines. The Qatar study cited by CDC found Pfizer was 89.5% effective against one variant and 75% effective against another.
I agree with medical analysts who say the CDC guidance is premature. Why not wait a bit longer until less virus is circulating in communities? More vaccination and less virus circulating in a region means more protection for all.
Quote from: clean on May 14, 2021, 12:56:38 PM
QuoteThose people who are unvaccinated may get sick, but if they are out unvaccinated with no mask then isn't it really on them at this point?
While I am CURRENTLY protected against COVID, there are variants that are created every day. It is the unmistakable nature of a virus. Those that are accepting the risk of infection are not acting against their own health risks alone/in isolation. They may well get sick and develop an inoculation resistant variant, ro spread one that is out there already. As the monitoring system is reactive, not proactive, we wont KNOW if there is a vaccine avoiding variant Until it reaches a level that it can be detected... And by then, it will spread quickly as even those vaccinated are no longer immune OR taking their own precautions, we will back to where we were over a year ago! We will be facing what India is facing today.
So these 'decision maker' are in effect the weakest links for our societal health. We can not, as a whole, be healthy when there are reluctant people INVITING infection!
As I have said before, sometimes I just want to root for the virus to 'eliminate the surplus population' if idiots and assholes that unilaterally make decisions that impact the health of ALL of us!
In the broadest terms, that's right. However, I think you're overplaying the danger a bit. Vaccines protect well against all the variants and boosters can be added as needed. Of course, its important to get people vaccinated, around the world and in the US, but we aren't likely to end up with some strain that is totally resistant to the vaccines.
QuoteMore vaccination and less virus circulating in a region means more protection for all.
More protection for all
in that region. The others will lose.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 14, 2021, 12:24:23 PM
Folks are right that you can't trust others who aren't wearing masks to be vaccinated, but you still aren't in much danger if you, yourself, are vaccinated. Those people who are unvaccinated may get sick, but if they are out unvaccinated with no mask then isn't it really on them at this point?
Vulnerable seniors with co-morbidities are not fully protected by vaccines. The Qatar study cited by CDC found Pfizer was 89.5% effective against one variant and 75% effective against another.
Those are top line numbers. Protection against severe disease and hospitalization is almost always better.
Besides those numbers are quite good. The chance of a vaccinated person catching the virus and passing it to another vaccinated person are very low even if you have only 75 percent protection.
Quote from: Caracal on May 14, 2021, 01:51:11 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
Vulnerable seniors with co-morbidities are not fully protected by vaccines. The Qatar study cited by CDC found Pfizer was 89.5% effective against one variant and 75% effective against another.
Those are top line numbers. Protection against severe disease and hospitalization is almost always better.
Besides those numbers are quite good. The chance of a vaccinated person catching the virus and passing it to another vaccinated person are very low even if you have only 75 percent protection.
My concern is that there will be more virus circulating in communities when people aren't vaccinated and many aren't wearing masks (vaxxed or not). Hope I'm wrong. Thinking that highly-vulnerable loved ones have at least a 25 percent chance of getting a variant is not at all comforting to me.
If they have high virus rates in their regions and now people aren't wearing masks, these vulnerable people will be less likely to take advantage of their vaxxed status and get out to the store, etc. during the summer months before things may get worse again (hope not) in fall/winter. CDC timing is heartbreaking.
Yesterday's announcement made many people anxious and that's sad. CNN posted a long interview with a doctor who questions the timing and warns people to be careful.
Quote from: dismalist on May 14, 2021, 01:44:32 PM
QuoteMore vaccination and less virus circulating in a region means more protection for all.
More protection for all in that region. The others will lose.
I don't understand. Please clarify.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 14, 2021, 01:44:32 PM
QuoteMore vaccination and less virus circulating in a region means more protection for all.
More protection for all in that region. The others will lose.
I don't understand. Please clarify.
Yeah, the vaccine has to come form somewhere.
A lot of faculty need a to get a grip. They didn't give a damn about immunocompromised students pre-COVID
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 02:12:42 PM
Thinking that highly-vulnerable loved ones have at least a 25 percent chance of getting a variant is not at all comforting to me.
You are misunderstanding what efficacy numbers mean-- 75% efficacy does not mean a 25% chance of getting infected, it means the prevalence is 75% lower in the vaccine than control group. The control group never has anywhere near a 100% chance of getting infected, so the chances vaccinated are MUCH lower than 25%.
Quote from: Puget on May 14, 2021, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 02:12:42 PM
Thinking that highly-vulnerable loved ones have at least a 25 percent chance of getting a variant is not at all comforting to me.
You are misunderstanding what efficacy numbers mean-- 75% efficacy does not mean a 25% chance of getting infected, it means the prevalence is 75% lower in the vaccine than control group. The control group never has anywhere near a 100% chance of getting infected, so the chances vaccinated are MUCH lower than 25%.
Was hoping that was the case, thanks very much, Puget. I'll move on now, have posted enough in this thread. Obviously, not happy and concerned. Appreciate your posts, thanks again.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Puget on May 14, 2021, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 14, 2021, 02:12:42 PM
Thinking that highly-vulnerable loved ones have at least a 25 percent chance of getting a variant is not at all comforting to me.
You are misunderstanding what efficacy numbers mean-- 75% efficacy does not mean a 25% chance of getting infected, it means the prevalence is 75% lower in the vaccine than control group. The control group never has anywhere near a 100% chance of getting infected, so the chances vaccinated are MUCH lower than 25%.
Was hoping that was the case, thanks very much, Puget. I'll move on now, have posted enough in this thread. Obviously, not happy and concerned. Appreciate your posts, thanks again.
You're welcome-- I think it is totally fine for different folks to have different risk tolerances, but good for their risk assessment to be based on an accurate understanding of the data.
Both MD and VA are lifting their mask mandates:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/05/hogan-maryland-mask-mandate-to-be-lifted-saturday/ (https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/05/hogan-maryland-mask-mandate-to-be-lifted-saturday/)
Clicking "Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam also announced Friday" will take you to a new page.
From WTOP Radio (5/14/21)
Have you been out and about since the change in the mask advice?
Do you feel safe?
Quote from: clean on May 16, 2021, 10:41:10 AM
Have you been out and about since the change in the mask advice?
Do you feel safe?
Yes. Most people stay masked, but we have had good luck controlling the virus in our region. People have been very compliant and our vax rate is pretty high.
We keep our masks on most of the time partly out of habit, and partly out of respect for those who are not vaxxed for whatever reason.
I'm fully vaccinated and I live alone, so I appreciate being able to ease up on masks a little bit when I'm out in public. It will be especially nice not have to wear a mask outdoors (not a requirement of my city, but a requirement of my employer until this past week). That having been said, I fully recognize that not everyone is vaccinated and that there are still people who are vulnerable and/or immunocompromised. For that reason, I still plan to wear a mask when I'm in public indoor places like a grocery store or Wal-Mart that lack social distancing. And I'll of course respect any business that requests people continue to mask for the time being.
Quote from: pepsi_alum on May 16, 2021, 12:26:16 PM
I'm fully vaccinated and I live alone, so I appreciate being able to ease up on masks a little bit when I'm out in public. It will be especially nice not have to wear a mask outdoors (not a requirement of my city, but a requirement of my employer until this past week). That having been said, I fully recognize that not everyone is vaccinated and that there are still people who are vulnerable and/or immunocompromised. For that reason, I still plan to wear a mask when I'm in public indoor places like a grocery store or Wal-Mart that lack social distancing. And I'll of course respect any business that requests people continue to mask for the time being.
Yeah, that's what I plan to do, as well. Probably worth remembering that places like grocery stores really aren't where most spread occurs. The places that are most dangerous are bars and restaurants, as well as workplaces.
Quote from: clean on May 16, 2021, 10:41:10 AM
Have you been out and about since the change in the mask advice?
Do you feel safe?
Most everyone was still wearing masks at the grocery store two days ago, although I had been seeing a growing number of uncovered faces even before the CDC's announcement the other day and I'm sure that we will see more people dropping masks now.
Personally, I feel safe, and have felt safe, because I'm fully vaccinated. But for now I will continue to wear the mask when at a store or in other indoor establishments.
Very few people were wearing masks around here anyway, and vaccination rates are low. I'm still going to wear a mask. I have zero confidence that people will really only go un-masked if they were vaccinated: the exact people who won't wear masks are the people who won't get vaccinated.
A friend of mine told me that his elderly (90-something) aunt just passed away. She had COVID last year, then was vaccinated, then got COVID again and died. Nothing is 100%.
Quote from: pgher on May 16, 2021, 07:10:45 PM
A friend of mine told me that his elderly (90-something) aunt just passed away. She had COVID last year, then was vaccinated, then got COVID again and died. Nothing is 100%.
That's very true, and I don't think it is a good idea to judge other people's risk tolerances and decisions, as long as they are within certain reasonable bounds. I'm not really comfortable yet sitting inside at a restaurant or coffee shop and am still going to wear masks inside, for now.
That said, its important to remember that reducing risks should change our decision making process. In theory, my baseline covid risk was relatively low to begin with. Didn't want to catch it, but chances are, I wouldn't have been hospitalized and/or died. Vaccinated, those risks have been dramatically cut, probably to levels that make COVID a risk comparable to the kind of basic risks I face from being alive.
An elderly person, or a person with is immuno compromised is at a higher risk to begin with, and may not get quite the same reduction in risk I get and that might influence their choices, although a person in their 90s is at much higher risk from a cold too.
Quote from: Caracal on May 17, 2021, 05:45:25 AM
Quote from: pgher on May 16, 2021, 07:10:45 PM
A friend of mine told me that his elderly (90-something) aunt just passed away. She had COVID last year, then was vaccinated, then got COVID again and died. Nothing is 100%.
That's very true, and I don't think it is a good idea to judge other people's risk tolerances and decisions, as long as they are within certain reasonable bounds. I'm not really comfortable yet sitting inside at a restaurant or coffee shop and am still going to wear masks inside, for now.
That said, its important to remember that reducing risks should change our decision making process. In theory, my baseline covid risk was relatively low to begin with. Didn't want to catch it, but chances are, I wouldn't have been hospitalized and/or died. Vaccinated, those risks have been dramatically cut, probably to levels that make COVID a risk comparable to the kind of basic risks I face from being alive.
An elderly person, or a person with is immuno compromised is at a higher risk to begin with, and may not get quite the same reduction in risk I get and that might influence their choices, although a person in their 90s is at much higher risk from a cold too.
Well said.
Everyone is entitled to their risk tolerance and we're all figuring out how to navigate life in the context of our own tolerance levels. That said, if we are waiting for 100% certainty then we will never be taking off our masks or sitting inside (and we might as well stop engaging in most other day-to-day activities as well - many of which are much riskier than dying of covid if Vaccinated).
Quote from: clean on May 16, 2021, 10:41:10 AM
Have you been out and about since the change in the mask advice?
Do you feel safe?
Flew home to visit my Aged Parent yesterday and was gratified to see that the airlines were still politely reminding my fellow travellers to wear masks over both nose and mouth (yay!). I felt safer in the airports and on the planes than I have felt at any point in my rural Southern college town. People in Aged P's town are still very careful despite the lifting of mask restrictions, and most businesses are still enforcing them.
AR.
Quote from: Mobius on May 14, 2021, 02:32:51 PM
A lot of faculty need a to get a grip. They didn't give a damn about immunocompromised students pre-COVID
Or immunocompromised co-workers.
My state's department of health released a statement that 1 out of 2 unvaccinated local people age 65+ who get Covid are ending up hospitalized. I have no idea how accurate this data is or where it is coming from. But it's not being broadcast by the media, even though it seems to be a persuasive message.
Edited to add: I recently went on an outdoor run with two physicians. All three of us have been vaccinated and none of us wore masks. This activity fell within my risk tolerance. But I will probably be wearing a mask inside grocery stores for another year at minimum.
Still wearing a mask indoors in public, although I've been fully vaccinated for weeks now. At work I put one on whenever I come out from the staff area of the library. We still ask people to wear them here, so it's up to us to set the example. Elsewhere it's just as easy to slip on a mask as to engage in awkward explanations about being vaccinated.
Informative article about scientific debates over mask quality and mask impact:
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-the-evolving-science-of-face-masks-and-covid-19/
Critical Analysis: "Cloth masks might offer some benefit for people running into a grocery store for five to 10 minutes, but for workers who are there for hours, Brosseau thinks they do little to capture or filter out the smaller respiratory particles, or aerosols, that can linger in the air and build up. That's why she thinks more attention needs to be paid to better ventilation systems and better masks — ultimately, N95 respirators for workers and other standardized masks for the public."
Unknowns: "...it's not yet known how good is good enough when it comes to masks. And there are still many remaining unknowns about how the coronavirus spreads, including how much virus it takes to infect a person and how that might depend on particle size or the exact route the virus uses to enter the body. "Without that information," he [Volckens] said, "it's really hard to make risk-based decisions."
Thanks for posting the article, Cheerful. It has a great collection of links to the relevant studies. My understanding has been that the masks provide little benefit to the wearer but more benefit to the people around the wearer (and that still seems to be the case), but it's interesting to know that there might be greater benefits to wearers also.
AR.
Quote from: pgher on May 16, 2021, 07:10:45 PM
Very few people were wearing masks around here anyway, and vaccination rates are low. I'm still going to wear a mask. I have zero confidence that people will really only go un-masked if they were vaccinated: the exact people who won't wear masks are the people who won't get vaccinated.
The dilemma facing local mask-refusers now is whether to wear a mask and look like a libtard, or to go without and looking like you got vaccinated like a libtard.
It should have never been political to begin with, but, like everything in this country it became political.
I wore masks when required and when the advice was that it was helpful, but I never liked them.
I don't want to contribute to being political about them, but I can't help it; for a year we were screamed at "WEAR MASKS, BELIEVE SCIENCE, SCIENCE IS REAL, I WILL LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!!!"
Well all of that isn't aging well with some people. It kind of makes me want to go up to masked people at Target and yell "Someone doesn't believe in SCIENCE," though of course I won't do anything like that.
Quote from: Descartes on May 18, 2021, 08:15:19 AM
It should have never been political to begin with, but, like everything in this country it became political.
I wore masks when required and when the advice was that it was helpful, but I never liked them.
I don't want to contribute to being political about them, but I can't help it; for a year we were screamed at "WEAR MASKS, BELIEVE SCIENCE, SCIENCE IS REAL, I WILL LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!!!"
Well all of that isn't aging well with some people. It kind of makes me want to go up to masked people at Target and yell "Someone doesn't believe in SCIENCE," though of course I won't do anything like that.
There's a difference between failing to follow minimum standards designed to keep everyone safe and being more risk adverse than is absolutely necessary. I sometimes see people out walking in my neighborhood wearing those reflective vests. It always seems a little unnecessary to me, since traffic isn't really that heavy and there are plenty of sidewalks, but who cares? Maybe the person takes a route where they have to walk on a more dangerous road than I do. Maybe, they know someone who was hit by a car while walking or they were hit themselves and are particularly attuned to this particular danger. It probably does reduce their risk a little bit and just because it isn't a precaution I'm interested in taking doesn't mean the person is crazy. Besides, it doesn't harm me in the slightest.
I'm still disinclined to go eat in a restaurant inside or go to a bar, and when I do go inside in public spaces I'm still wearing a mask. I'm not sure if those decisions are strictly rational at the moment, but I'm not required to submit all of my decisions on risk and comfort level to some scientific panel as long as I'm not doing anything that is more risky to others around me.
Yesterday, DC Mayor Bowser announced lifting the mask mandate:
https://wtop.com/dc/2021/05/dc-lifts-mask-and-distancing-requirements-for-fully-vaccinated-people/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2021/05/dc-lifts-mask-and-distancing-requirements-for-fully-vaccinated-people/)
Posted on WTOP online (5/17/21)
Re: Immunocompromised
What should we be doing for them? We knew the mask mandate would end sooner or later while the pandemic was still around (Biden telegraphed it with 100 days of masking).
Re: Masks in retail stores
Went to Sam's Club today and noticed most of the workers were still masked up despite company rules saying vaccinated employees can ditch the mask. Vaccine-hesitant or cautious?
Quote from: Mobius on May 18, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
Re: Immunocompromised
What should we be doing for them? We knew the mask mandate would end sooner or later while the pandemic was still around (Biden telegraphed it with 100 days of masking).
Re: Masks in retail stores
Went to Sam's Club today and noticed most of the workers were still masked up despite company rules saying vaccinated employees can ditch the mask. Vaccine-hesitant or cautious?
Well, like I said, when I'm in contact with the public on the other side of the desk (out from behind the sneeze guards) I wear a mask just to try to encourage patrons to wear theirs. Not too many seem to be paying attention, but I'll keep doing so for the time being. When I'm not in front of the public I no longer bother wearing one much. Vaccination rates are fairly high among the people that I interact with regularly. Although we still have some staff members that I wish I could persuade.
The governor of Texas just mandated that no government entity is allowed to require face masks. Texas A&M friends just posted that their bosses sent an announcement that pursuant to the governor's actions, face masks are no longer required on campus, for example.
This should be interesting.
Or something.
Quote from: DrSomebody on May 18, 2021, 06:33:37 PM
The governor of Texas just mandated that no government entity is allowed to require face masks. Texas A&M friends just posted that their bosses sent an announcement that pursuant to the governor's actions, face masks are no longer required on campus, for example.
This should be interesting.
Or something.
Our campus president sent an email this morning. I'd estimate that 80% of people on campus were maskless within 15 minutes.
Quote from: Vkw10 on May 19, 2021, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: DrSomebody on May 18, 2021, 06:33:37 PM
The governor of Texas just mandated that no government entity is allowed to require face masks. Texas A&M friends just posted that their bosses sent an announcement that pursuant to the governor's actions, face masks are no longer required on campus, for example.
This should be interesting.
Or something.
Our campus president sent an email this morning. I'd estimate that 80% of people on campus were maskless within 15 minutes.
Our campus has been for all practical purposes maskless and socially intimate since March when Abbott rolled back all state covid 19 mandates. The man's ambition appears to be becoming the conservative FDR. He's running for president.
Quote from: Vkw10 on May 19, 2021, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: DrSomebody on May 18, 2021, 06:33:37 PM
The governor of Texas just mandated that no government entity is allowed to require face masks. Texas A&M friends just posted that their bosses sent an announcement that pursuant to the governor's actions, face masks are no longer required on campus, for example.
This should be interesting.
Or something.
Our campus president sent an email this morning. I'd estimate that 80% of people on campus were maskless within 15 minutes.
In the case of a college campus, I'd assume that's about the percentage of people who are fully vaccinated now? I have a social circle filled with academics, and just about all of them are protected at this point.
I heard there is a crowd of people who are anti-vaxxers and afraid of the people who are vaccinated because of their warped DNA due to being injected with GMO COVID. So now they are wearing masks to protect themselves from the vaccinated people.
Okay there, then.
Quote from: Caracal on May 18, 2021, 10:22:11 AM
Quote from: Descartes on May 18, 2021, 08:15:19 AM
It should have never been political to begin with, but, like everything in this country it became political.
I wore masks when required and when the advice was that it was helpful, but I never liked them.
I don't want to contribute to being political about them, but I can't help it; for a year we were screamed at "WEAR MASKS, BELIEVE SCIENCE, SCIENCE IS REAL, I WILL LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS!!!"
Well all of that isn't aging well with some people. It kind of makes me want to go up to masked people at Target and yell "Someone doesn't believe in SCIENCE," though of course I won't do anything like that.
There's a difference between failing to follow minimum standards designed to keep everyone safe and being more risk adverse than is absolutely necessary. I sometimes see people out walking in my neighborhood wearing those reflective vests. It always seems a little unnecessary to me, since traffic isn't really that heavy and there are plenty of sidewalks, but who cares? Maybe the person takes a route where they have to walk on a more dangerous road than I do. Maybe, they know someone who was hit by a car while walking or they were hit themselves and are particularly attuned to this particular danger. It probably does reduce their risk a little bit and just because it isn't a precaution I'm interested in taking doesn't mean the person is crazy. Besides, it doesn't harm me in the slightest.
I'm still disinclined to go eat in a restaurant inside or go to a bar, and when I do go inside in public spaces I'm still wearing a mask. I'm not sure if those decisions are strictly rational at the moment, but I'm not required to submit all of my decisions on risk and comfort level to some scientific panel as long as I'm not doing anything that is more risky to others around me.
Yes you are completely correct, of course. I just hate the smugness which permeates political virtue signaling on both sides, but which has been especially strong from the liberal side the past year. The whole thing should have been "you do you" from the beginning. If you're afraid, or know you have reason to be, stay out of restaurants, wear masks, and all the rest of it. If you take stock and say "I'm 22, healthy, and frankly just am unafraid," then you should be and should have been free to go where you want, mask or not.
Suddenly it became "if you don't wear a mask I'll assume you are a Trumptard" from liberal circles and "Oh you're wearing a mask you must be a mindless cuck" from conservative circles. I thought both were idiots.
Everyone thinks they know something about someone. Some conservatives don't agree with global warming mitigation, for instance, not because they are sure it's not real, but because they believe the collateral damage of the mitigation efforts will be worse than actual global warming. It's not that they don't "believe science is real." There's just a difference of opinion of what should be done or whether something drastic needs to be done at all.
Same with this pandemic.
Quote from: ciao_yall on May 20, 2021, 06:33:28 AM
I heard there is a crowd of people who are anti-vaxxers and afraid of the people who are vaccinated because of their warped DNA due to being injected with GMO COVID. So now they are wearing masks to protect themselves from the vaccinated people.
Okay there, then.
There were joke conspiracy theories being spread last year that went something along the lines of Obama setting up, in the twilight of his presidency, a secret surveillance program being carried out by the deep state, and that the best way for a true American patriot to defend their constitutional rights against Obama was to wear a mask in order to hide their identity. A couple of my idiot friends from high school actually thought it was true.
If it got them to mask up, I didn't argue with them.
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 09:24:11 AM
If you take stock and say "I'm 22, healthy, and frankly just am unafraid," then you should be and should have been free to go where you want, mask or not.
No, this is completely non-equivalent! The primary functions of masks are to reduce *transmission* (and yes, there is good evidence they do). Doesn't matter how healthy that person is, they can still spread to others who are at high risk. The point is now if you are *vaccinated* you are unlikely to infect anyone else-- that's why it is ok to not mask.
Quote from: Puget on May 20, 2021, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 09:24:11 AM
If you take stock and say "I'm 22, healthy, and frankly just am unafraid," then you should be and should have been free to go where you want, mask or not.
No, this is completely non-equivalent! The primary functions of masks are to reduce *transmission* (and yes, there is good evidence they do). Doesn't matter how healthy that person is, they can still spread to others who are at high risk. The point is now if you are *vaccinated* you are unlikely to infect anyone else-- that's why it is ok to not mask.
Correct take. This "do you" approach doesn't work with a highly contagious airborne disease.
Quote from: Puget on May 20, 2021, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 09:24:11 AM
If you take stock and say "I'm 22, healthy, and frankly just am unafraid," then you should be and should have been free to go where you want, mask or not.
No, this is completely non-equivalent! The primary functions of masks are to reduce *transmission* (and yes, there is good evidence they do). Doesn't matter how healthy that person is, they can still spread to others who are at high risk. The point is now if you are *vaccinated* you are unlikely to infect anyone else-- that's why it is ok to not mask.
OK, but under the "you do you" policy, you would not be leaving your house and thus not coming into contact with any non-masked people, right? Those who did choose to go out would be accepting the risk of unmasked people.
Also, not sure if you have the expertise to answer this question, but how is it possible that masks only work in one direction? It never was believable to me that my mask stops the virus from leaving my mouth thus protecting you, but can't stop the virus from getting into my mouth so my mask is no protection to me. It doesn't seem logical that the fabric works as a one way street. I've mostly just acted as though that claim is true and accepted it because the experts all said that's how it is, but I've never been able to find a real explanation of how that's possible.
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 20, 2021, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 09:24:11 AM
If you take stock and say "I'm 22, healthy, and frankly just am unafraid," then you should be and should have been free to go where you want, mask or not.
No, this is completely non-equivalent! The primary functions of masks are to reduce *transmission* (and yes, there is good evidence they do). Doesn't matter how healthy that person is, they can still spread to others who are at high risk. The point is now if you are *vaccinated* you are unlikely to infect anyone else-- that's why it is ok to not mask.
OK, but under the "you do you" policy, you would not be leaving your house and thus not coming into contact with any non-masked people, right? Those who did choose to go out would be accepting the risk of unmasked people.
Also, not sure if you have the expertise to answer this question, but how is it possible that masks only work in one direction? It never was believable to me that my mask stops the virus from leaving my mouth thus protecting you, but can't stop the virus from getting into my mouth so my mask is no protection to me. It doesn't seem logical that the fabric works as a one way street. I've mostly just acted as though that claim is true and accepted it because the experts all said that's how it is, but I've never been able to find a real explanation of how that's possible.
That was the initial suspicion, but further studies have suggested that masks actually protect both the wearer and others.
Just returned from my first 'post mask mandate update' trip to the grocery store. It rained here yesterday, so there may be some extra crowds in the store, but for a noon time Thursday venture, it was not too, too busy.
I suppose that on the plus side, I should be happy with all of the folks that are still wearing masks! Certainly the vast majority are wearing masks. (But even as the loudspeaker plays the prerecorded 'please wear your mask while shopping, and stay home if you have a fever' message) I counted about 30 people not wearing a mask. That is double the number that I was seeing the last time I went to the store.
Again, I am glad to see the numbers I am seeing wearing their masks, but disappointed that it has doubled the 'non compliance' numbers.
Still I saw one pair of maskless people in the store and then saw them getting into their car (with appropriate plates) parked in the handicapped space! It would seem likely to me that IF you have a handicap, then most likely you have a pre existing condition or are at 'greater risk'.
Are you seeing an explosion of maskless folks in your area?
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 20, 2021, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: Descartes on May 20, 2021, 09:24:11 AM
If you take stock and say "I'm 22, healthy, and frankly just am unafraid," then you should be and should have been free to go where you want, mask or not.
No, this is completely non-equivalent! The primary functions of masks are to reduce *transmission* (and yes, there is good evidence they do). Doesn't matter how healthy that person is, they can still spread to others who are at high risk. The point is now if you are *vaccinated* you are unlikely to infect anyone else-- that's why it is ok to not mask.
OK, but under the "you do you" policy, you would not be leaving your house and thus not coming into contact with any non-masked people, right? Those who did choose to go out would be accepting the risk of unmasked people.
Also, not sure if you have the expertise to answer this question, but how is it possible that masks only work in one direction? It never was believable to me that my mask stops the virus from leaving my mouth thus protecting you, but can't stop the virus from getting into my mouth so my mask is no protection to me. It doesn't seem logical that the fabric works as a one way street. I've mostly just acted as though that claim is true and accepted it because the experts all said that's how it is, but I've never been able to find a real explanation of how that's possible.
Uh, you do realize many people need to work outside the home right? I mean, I presume you continued to, for example, need food during the pandemic. Who do you think was growing, processing, transporting and selling you that food? Not to mention all the other essential workers. Do you think your right to "do you" supersedes trying to help protect them? (If you do, we have nothing further to say to one another).
Yes, masks also help protect you-- I wasn't commenting on that because if "doing you" means taking risks just for yourself than have at it, I won't interfere (just don't ask me to help pay for your care if you get sick), but it isn't OK to put others at risk.
QuoteAlso, not sure if you have the expertise to answer this question, but how is it possible that masks only work in one direction?
This question has bugged me since inception. I don't do non-symmetries. I invented the following out of whole cloth.
Best I can figure is that the pesky little viruses also live in nasal mucous or mouth mucous and the mask stops the liquid on the way out. Thus, little viruses are immobilized.
However, should a maskless person sneeze at you, the little viruses will have left their mucous carrier, fly through the air, and implant themselves into you.
--I've never come across a professional explanation for the asymmetry.
--I know of no systematic tests that have been done. [Sound familiar?]
Universal precautions are universal precautions until the need is not universal anymore.
As far as I can see, there are still un-clued folk insisting on their right to put everyone else at risk for no good reason, and they're anti-canny enough to figure out that all they have to say now, is, "But I'M VACCINATED!" so as to avoid the mask mandate, and think they're getting away with something.
On my once-every-other-week (double-masked and nitrile-gloved) trip to the bank and the store at 7 AM, I saw several whom, I am guessing, were operating under that delusion.
Where possible, I walked out in the street to stay 6 feel away from them. Where necessary, I sat as far apart as I could to keep from being near them on the bus. If I couldn't do anything else, I made sure to turn my head away from theirs, preferably towards a wall, as they went by.
People can play all the games they want with their own lives (well, no, they really can't, it still affects others) but polite and courteous includes thinking about how one's actions affect others, and doing something appropriate about it.
Like wearing a mask and not wandering about like you own the place.
You don't.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on May 20, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
Universal precautions are universal precautions until the need is not universal anymore.
As far as I can see, there are still un-clued folk insisting on their right to put everyone else at risk for no good reason, and they're anti-canny enough to figure out that all they have to say now, is, "But I'M VACCINATED!" so as to avoid the mask mandate, and think they're getting away with something.
On my once-every-other-week (double-masked and nitrile-gloved) trip to the bank and the store at 7 AM, I saw several whom, I am guessing, were operating under that delusion.
Where possible, I walked out in the street to stay 6 feel away from them. Where necessary, I sat as far apart as I could to keep from being near them on the bus. If I couldn't do anything else, I made sure to turn my head away from theirs, preferably towards a wall, as they went by.
People can play all the games they want with their own lives (well, no, they really can't, it still affects others) but polite and courteous includes thinking about how one's actions affect others, and doing something appropriate about it.
Like wearing a mask and not wandering about like you own the place.
You don't.
M.
But ... the guidance is that if one is fully vaxxed they do not need to wear it anymore. Are you only referring to those who lie about it?
I actually am vaccinated; and yes, I'm done with the mask.
Quote from: dismalist on May 20, 2021, 12:35:57 PM
QuoteAlso, not sure if you have the expertise to answer this question, but how is it possible that masks only work in one direction?
This question has bugged me since inception. I don't do non-symmetries. I invented the following out of whole cloth.
Best I can figure is that the pesky little viruses also live in nasal mucous or mouth mucous and the mask stops the liquid on the way out. Thus, little viruses are immobilized.
However, should a maskless person sneeze at you, the little viruses will have left their mucous carrier, fly through the air, and implant themselves into you.
--I've never come across a professional explanation for the asymmetry.
--I know of no systematic tests that have been done. [Sound familiar?]
There's a fair amount of research in these areas that to my reading supports the idea that masks are observationally better at "source control" (preventing virus getting out of an infected person) than they are at protecting a wearer, though they do both of those things with some efficiency see for example this (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536)and this (https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20). Generally it looks like 1) droplets being exhaled are in general larger and easier to catch, but as they break up and get smaller, they are less easy to catch and can be inhaled through a mask and possibly that 2) people can get infected through other mucous membranes (eyes) that aren't covered by masks.
What also VERY clear is that wearing a mask is NOT sufficient to protect someone from the aerosols created by an unmasked infected person. And people with immune deficiencies likely have less robust responses to the vaccines, and thus are comparatively unprotected. So people who say "well, I'm at low risk and willing to run the risk of getting COVID, and people who are scared should just take precautions so I'm planning to gallivant around without a mask" are basically saying "people who are themselves at high risk or who live with high risk people are unimportant to me and should just put their lives on hold because wearing a mask is too much trouble for me"
My personal opinion is that the new CDC mask recommendations are science based — vaccinated people are unlikely to get or transmit COVID, and thus don't need masks. In a perfect world where people actually followed this guidance it would be fine. But in the real world there are numerous issues with vaccine uptake, and relatively high levels of circulation lots of places. When this is combined with the joyful announcement of some people (including some people in congress) that a lack of mandates means everyone can stop wearing masks regardless, I start to worry. As a matter of PUBLIC health policy, I think mask mandates should have been maintained until the prevalence was low enough for people who can't be vaccinated or who will respond to vaccines less robustly to have some confidence that they weren't going to get COVID in the workplace or at a store. This would also slow down the production of new variants.
Quote from: onthefringe on May 20, 2021, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 20, 2021, 12:35:57 PM
QuoteAlso, not sure if you have the expertise to answer this question, but how is it possible that masks only work in one direction?
This question has bugged me since inception. I don't do non-symmetries. I invented the following out of whole cloth.
Best I can figure is that the pesky little viruses also live in nasal mucous or mouth mucous and the mask stops the liquid on the way out. Thus, little viruses are immobilized.
However, should a maskless person sneeze at you, the little viruses will have left their mucous carrier, fly through the air, and implant themselves into you.
--I've never come across a professional explanation for the asymmetry.
--I know of no systematic tests that have been done. [Sound familiar?]
There's a fair amount of research in these areas that to my reading supports the idea that masks are observationally better at "source control" (preventing virus getting out of an infected person) than they are at protecting a wearer, though they do both of those things with some efficiency see for example this (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536)and this (https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20). Generally it looks like 1) droplets being exhaled are in general larger and easier to catch, but as they break up and get smaller, they are less easy to catch and can be inhaled through a mask and possibly that 2) people can get infected through other mucous membranes (eyes) that aren't covered by masks.
What also VERY clear is that wearing a mask is NOT sufficient to protect someone from the aerosols created by an unmasked infected person. And people with immune deficiencies likely have less robust responses to the vaccines, and thus are comparatively unprotected. So people who say "well, I'm at low risk and willing to run the risk of getting COVID, and people who are scared should just take precautions so I'm planning to gallivant around without a mask" are basically saying "people who are themselves at high risk or who live with high risk people are unimportant to me and should just put their lives on hold because wearing a mask is too much trouble for me"
My personal opinion is that the new CDC mask recommendations are science based — vaccinated people are unlikely to get or transmit COVID, and thus don't need masks. In a perfect world where people actually followed this guidance it would be fine. But in the real world there are numerous issues with vaccine uptake, and relatively high levels of circulation lots of places. When this is combined with the joyful announcement of some people (including some people in congress) that a lack of mandates means everyone can stop wearing masks regardless, I start to worry. As a matter of PUBLIC health policy, I think mask mandates should have been maintained until the prevalence was low enough for people who can't be vaccinated or who will respond to vaccines less robustly to have some confidence that they weren't going to get COVID in the workplace or at a store. This would also slow down the production of new variants.
Excellent, just what I guessed [sort of]! :-)
Quote from: Cheerful on May 17, 2021, 04:59:51 PM
Informative article about scientific debates over mask quality and mask impact:
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-the-evolving-science-of-face-masks-and-covid-19/
Critical Analysis: "Cloth masks might offer some benefit for people running into a grocery store for five to 10 minutes, but for workers who are there for hours, Brosseau thinks they do little to capture or filter out the smaller respiratory particles, or aerosols, that can linger in the air and build up. That's why she thinks more attention needs to be paid to better ventilation systems and better masks — ultimately, N95 respirators for workers and other standardized masks for the public."
Unknowns: "...it's not yet known how good is good enough when it comes to masks. And there are still many remaining unknowns about how the coronavirus spreads, including how much virus it takes to infect a person and how that might depend on particle size or the exact route the virus uses to enter the body. "Without that information," he [Volckens] said, "it's really hard to make risk-based decisions."
The science on masks is not settled.
Quote from: onthefringe on May 20, 2021, 02:10:41 PM
As a matter of PUBLIC health policy, I think mask mandates should have been maintained until the prevalence was low enough for people who can't be vaccinated or who will respond to vaccines less robustly to have some confidence that they weren't going to get COVID in the workplace or at a store. This would also slow down the production of new variants.
The CDC didn't give political leaders or general public time to prepare. So you have a 20something grocery store cashier who has had only one of two doses, who's trying to do the right thing by getting vaxxed, and must now operate in an environment of non-vaxxed people without masks before the cashier is fully vaxxed.
Aaah, looks like the asymmetry in face mask efficacy is getting less asymmetric [good news]:
From Science, today
Abstract
Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited) where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/05/19/science.abg6296 (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/05/19/science.abg6296)
Quote from: Caracal on May 20, 2021, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on May 19, 2021, 07:11:12 PM
Our campus president sent an email this morning. I'd estimate that 80% of people on campus were maskless within 15 minutes.
In the case of a college campus, I'd assume that's about the percentage of people who are fully vaccinated now? I have a social circle filled with academics, and just about all of them are protected at this point.
I'm fairly certain faculty and staff in my department are vaccinated, but less certain about our graduate students and work study students. Many of them were having a hard time getting to vaccination sites. We've been told multiple times that we can't ask.
I found it amusing that people read the masks-not-required email so quickly. They don't respond to my emails that fast.
I haven't seen a single mask on campus other than myself. I just don't believe we're 100 percent vaccinated...maybe 75 percent at best?
Quote from: mamselle on May 20, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
Universal precautions are universal precautions until the need is not universal anymore.
As far as I can see, there are still un-clued folk insisting on their right to put everyone else at risk for no good reason, and they're anti-canny enough to figure out that all they have to say now, is, "But I'M VACCINATED!" so as to avoid the mask mandate, and think they're getting away with something.
On my once-every-other-week (double-masked and nitrile-gloved) trip to the bank and the store at 7 AM, I saw several whom, I am guessing, were operating under that delusion.
Where possible, I walked out in the street to stay 6 feel away from them. Where necessary, I sat as far apart as I could to keep from being near them on the bus. If I couldn't do anything else, I made sure to turn my head away from theirs, preferably towards a wall, as they went by.
People can play all the games they want with their own lives (well, no, they really can't, it still affects others) but polite and courteous includes thinking about how one's actions affect others, and doing something appropriate about it.
Like wearing a mask and not wandering about like you own the place.
You don't.
M.
I want to stipulate that
1. Nobody needs to stop wearing masks anywhere until they feel comfortable with it.
2. People have different risks as well as different risk tolerances. There might be good health based reasons for you to be continue to be cautious.
That said. As a not as young as I used to be person in (knock on wood) good health, the vaccine makes it extremely unlikely I'd get COVID or pass it to anyone. There are people who have been vaccinated who aren't fortunate enough for all that to be true for.
Of course, you're right that people need to still follow rules. That's just about courtesy. People going in places that say on the door that people need to wear masks shouldn't have to worry about whether the people not wearing them are vaccinated or not. I'm no longer worrying when people get close to me on the street, but I'm still trying to make sure I don't accidentally sidle up to people. They don't know that I'm vaccinated.