vaccines v herd immunity

[RedLantern]

^ this is binary thinking.

[Corylax18]

2 hours ago, RedLantern said:

^ this is binary thinking.

Haha. How so? Its pretty much all gray area. Thousands of different masks types, (porosities) huge variation in how the masks are worn, huge variations in adherence to social distancing. 

New York had relatively high adherence to mask wearing, but cases were still uncontrolled. Other states that where much less up tight about masks never had the spread or mortalitiy rates the NYC saw, despite populations that where less healthy to start with. Mask wearing and case spread where not directly correlated in US, but its an extremely difficult metric to track. Population density and case rates had a higher correlation in one study I looked at. My point is, transmission rates, hospitalizations, deaths, etc are dependent on thousands of variables. 

If masks Are/Where so actually Damn affective, why are we still having this conversation 15 months into this thing? Because people don't wear them right, or follow many of the other rules that where put in place. There is no Silver Bullet, Masks included. 

Saying "Masks Work" then plugging your ears is Binary thinking. 

[Philc2001]

4 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

There are a lot of "IFs" in there. 

IF Viral Load is low

IF masks are worn properly

IF distancing is also utilized 

IF people with Active infections aren't circulating widely within the population

I've never argued that masks work IF everybody wears them, correctly, all the time. But there is a massive difference between theoretical efficacy and real world efficacy. I saw the portion about lower transmission rates where mask usage was higher. But both sited articles are tangentially related. At best. One focuses more on eye protection and masks in combination with Social distancing. Neither provides nearly enough info to establish solid precedent. 

I flew 15 round trip flights(30 segments) for personal and business all around the US during the height of the pandemic. Most people don't where their masks properly and most don't wear them all the time. Myself included, I'm not shaving my beard/mustache. This is from coast to coast, north to south. 

Everyone has to wear their mask on the plane, except when eating and drinking. But they give everybody a snack and a bottle of water at the same time. All of a sudden 150 masks are around peoples chins for the next 5-10 minutes. Does the Virus know to just "cool it" and stop trying to spread during that period? We all have to stay 6' away walking around the airport, but its fine to pack the train between concourses like the Japanese subway. No issues there. 

Yes, masks can be PART of an affective plan to limit virus spread. One part, if the right masks are worn the right way, all the time. None of those things has been happening with any regularity for the last 15 months. But lets keep plying pretend, even though the "scientists" have said it really isn't necessary anymore. 

The virus is known to be airborne, transmitted by respiratory particles expelled into the air by someone who is infected. Viral particles from another person's respiratory output that is inhaled by another person increases the risk of infecting that person. I think this much is proven fact.

The article uses a quantitative model based on the abundance of airborne respiratory virus in the air. Think of it in measurable terms such as parts per billion, the amount of virus particles in a given volume of air. It is a pretty straight forward model where the amount of airborne virus (viral load) in the air within a contained space depends on the number of people in that space who are infected, how much virus is being expelled into the air (eg. coughing, sneezing, yelling, etc.), how long they are present in that space, the air filtration and circulation in that space, etc. 

I don't think it is difficult to understand the two key points of the masking ideology;
(1) masks can trap and substantially reduce the amount of virus particles expelled into the air, and 
(2) that masks substantially reduce the risk of inhaling viral particles from the virus load floating around you.

Even the basic surgical mask can reduce the amount of respiratory particles expelled into the air by about 50%. Some masks do even better. The case being made is that the abundance of airborne respiratory virus in the air at any given moment, whenever we are around others, is the key. If those infected are not masked, they could be releasing 50% or more greater viral load into the air. Anyone breathing infected air could be getting up to 50% more viral dose if they are not wearing a mask.

The research makes it clear that masking is not 100% effective. But even in the worst case, they are effective at substantially reducing the viral load in the air, and reducing the viral dose one can inhale from the air they breath. There are many variables in determining mask effectiveness, but most social settings where we are likely to be exposed to the virus, such as stores, restaurants, etc., are virus-limited, where masks can make a significant difference.

In your airplane example, eating/drinking during the flight can certainly contribute to higher viral loads in the air. But imagine how much higher the viral load would be if nobody wore masks at all for the entire duration of the flight. 

The point that I think you are trying to make is that since not everyone wears masks properly, and masks are not worn all the time, we shouldn't bother... that we are simply pretending that masks work. But when you put it into meaningful terms, such as viral load floating in the air, I think it is obvious that masks provide a level of protection that makes them worthwhile.  I'm not likely to convince you, but I'll follow the science here and will take comfort in knowing that when I wear my mask I am at least reducing the risk in half. 

[Corylax18]

6 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

but I'll follow the science here and will take comfort in knowing that when I wear my mask I am at least reducing the risk in half. 

But you're not really following the science. If you wear a mask and have the virus, you might transmit 50% less airborne virus cells if you sneeze/cough into the mask. If someone sitting next to you on a plane sneezes the virus into the air 100% of the airborne droplets can sneak through the edges of the mask or beard, or any area with less resistance than the "filtered" part. Unless your mask is perfectly sealed around all of the edges. If the sneezer wasn't wearing their mask over their nose, than you just inhaled roughly the same amount of airborne virus you would have with out any "protection" Al it takes is 1 or 2 people on an airplane to ruin it for everyone. There have been about 2 dozen of those people, minimum on every plane I've been on in the last year.

What I'm saying is that if all the numbers you stated where accurate, in the real world, we wouldn't have seen the severity or duration of world shutdown that we have. Especially when combined with the other more extreme measures that where taken. Regardless of what the rules are, they have to be followed to be affective. 

Masks are like pissing on a wild fire. Vaccine's are just a controlled burn around the hot spots. We're just hoping the fire doesn't jump the lines. (Flight bans to/from India right now) We still haven't actually figured out how to extinguish the flames. Maybe, if everybody peed on the right spot, at the same time, we could put the fire out. But we didn't, we haven't, and the results clearly show it.

We can tout stats, theory and experiments all day. We're watching the world's largest experiment right now and so far, no ones been able to solve the problem. Masks or not.

[Ginseng]

This is an informative article that I found. I think it describes well the challenge facing the country and its citizenry. 

When I have discussions with folks, I try to understand which of the perspectives they're talking from. That informs what I feel would be productive to discuss with them.

Group perspectives as contributing factors to vaccine hesitancy

[RedLantern]

@Corylax18You’re reducing “works” to “stops COVID flat” or “doesn’t stop Covid flat”  and you’re using what you view as negative results with no control group to justify your position that , as implemented, masks are not effective.

[mprach024]

15 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

Everyone has to wear their mask on the plane, except when eating and drinking. But they give everybody a snack and a bottle of water at the same time. All of a sudden 150 masks are around peoples chins for the next 5-10 minutes.

Lol I flew a few times last year and thought that was so dumb.  Nice observation so true.

11 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

If masks Are/Where so actually Damn affective, why are we still having this conversation 15 months into this thing?

Cant prove a negative.  How many cases would there have been with no mask measues in place?  🤷‍♂️

[Corylax18]

20 hours ago, RedLantern said:

@Corylax18You’re reducing “works” to “stops COVID flat” or “doesn’t stop Covid flat”  and you’re using what you view as negative results with no control group to justify your position that , as implemented, masks are not effective.

Remind me again. What's the goal here? 

Are you being serious? What's  "acceptable level" of Virus? Just some? Like 10 or 20%? We just want to keep enough virus circulating so that we cant tamp it out completely? 

You can apply whatever B.S. "everyone gets a trophy" metric of success you want, but the current state of the world is not a success, its not win. We botched this, badly. 

None of the dozen MAJOR changes we made to society where affective at slowing it down. Obviously! The vaccine is the only thing that has shown any ability to consistently, universally slow down transmission rates. IN THE REAL WORLD. 

If 3.5 million dead, and counting, is success to you, then we aren't going to find much common ground. 2 years of economic and societal damage, trillions of dollars in lost business, more tribalism and division. The entire species has majorly devolved in the last year. 

Go ahead, pat your self on the back and convince yourself you're a hero for covering your nose with your tee shirt for a few months. That's what solved the problem...................................

This is what the pandemic would have looked like if any of the numbers presented here had been anywhere close to accurate, in reality. 

100,00 to 200,000 deaths in the US, WORST CASE. HAHA WRONG! If these were really the best people for the job, we're toast if something really mysterious comes along. 

These idiots didn't have an F-ing clue. We're at triple the top number and counting, more than a year later. I don't understand the insistence on continuing to push junk science, even after its been proven wrong. 

The CDC says cloth masks aren't affective MOST of the time (roughly 70%) They CLEARLY haven't been affective most of the time, what is there still to debate? 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/31/824946036/models-of-epidemic-predict-huge-u-s-death-toll-scientists-hope-for-better-outcom

 

14 hours ago, mprach024 said:

Cant prove a negative.  How many cases would there have been with no mask measues in place?  🤷‍♂️

We obviously cant go back and run it again. (Thank God) But there is a real conversation to be had on if they actually made things worse. 

The false sense of security the gave people kept them travelling, kept them interacting with Sick people, kept the transmission rates higher than they would have been if we had handled it differently. 

Its been painful for the Aussie crew, but their government locked down international borders, hard. A lot of Aussie's still cant get home. 2 week quarantine in Alice springs if you are lucky enough to catch a flight. They stopped it at the border, almost completely. 

Its been painful, I'm sure, but they didn't mess around. Less then 100 deaths across almost 30 Million people. If the rest of the world had done the same (I get it not as easy when you aren't an island) we may be back to normal by now. But the rest of the world decided to pull of the band aide as slow as possible, so we all have to feel it pull every single, hair out. 

[rcarlson]

49 minutes ago, Corylax18 said:

We obviously cant go back and run it again. (Thank God) But there is a real conversation to be had on if they actually made things worse. 

The false sense of security the gave people kept them travelling, kept them interacting with Sick people, kept the transmission rates higher than they would have been if we had handled it differently. 

Its been painful for the Aussie crew, but their government locked down international borders, hard. A lot of Aussie's still cant get home. 2 week quarantine in Alice springs if you are lucky enough to catch a flight. They stopped it at the border, almost completely. 

Its been painful, I'm sure, but they didn't mess around. Less then 100 deaths across almost 30 Million people. If the rest of the world had done the same (I get it not as easy when you aren't an island) we may be back to normal by now. But the rest of the world decided to pull of the band aide as slow as possible, so we all have to feel it pull every single, hair out. 

An equally dubious proposition as the mask mandates.  

[Philc2001]

On 5/23/2021 at 2:30 AM, RedLantern said:

^ this is binary thinking.

So it seems, I can't follow the logic... either 100% compliance, or don't even bother. Much as we wish for universal and coordinated behavior, countries like China, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and others that reacted quickly and early were much more successful. That is real the world. 

 

23 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

But you're not really following the science. If you wear a mask and have the virus, you might transmit 50% less airborne virus cells if you sneeze/cough into the mask. If someone sitting next to you on a plane sneezes the virus into the air 100% of the airborne droplets can sneak through the edges of the mask or beard, or any area with less resistance than the "filtered" part. Unless your mask is perfectly sealed around all of the edges. If the sneezer wasn't wearing their mask over their nose, than you just inhaled roughly the same amount of airborne virus you would have with out any "protection" Al it takes is 1 or 2 people on an airplane to ruin it for everyone. There have been about 2 dozen of those people, minimum on every plane I've been on in the last year.

What I'm saying is that if all the numbers you stated where accurate, in the real world, we wouldn't have seen the severity or duration of world shutdown that we have. Especially when combined with the other more extreme measures that where taken. Regardless of what the rules are, they have to be followed to be affective. 

Masks are like pissing on a wild fire. Vaccine's are just a controlled burn around the hot spots. We're just hoping the fire doesn't jump the lines. (Flight bans to/from India right now) We still haven't actually figured out how to extinguish the flames. Maybe, if everybody peed on the right spot, at the same time, we could put the fire out. But we didn't, we haven't, and the results clearly show it.

We can tout stats, theory and experiments all day. We're watching the world's largest experiment right now and so far, no ones been able to solve the problem. Masks or not.

It may be just be me and how I'm reading your feedback, but it seems that your'e criticizing the masses for not complying 100% with mandates, yet you openly admit you yourself don't comply. 

The wave patterns in the stats prove conclusively that the shutdowns did slow down the virus. Unfortunately, the response was inconsistent around the world. But those countries that did move quickly and early have been more successful at containing it and resuming normalcy. 

[Ginseng]

9 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

The wave patterns in the stats prove conclusively that the shutdowns did slow down the virus. Unfortunately, the response was inconsistent around the world. But those countries that did move quickly and early have been more successful at containing it and resuming normalcy. 

Yes, but.

The situation in Taiwan shows that blocking out the world, without establishing a high level of internal (herd) immunity means your population is safe and protected...until the outside world finds a way in or one of your citizens bring in something from the outside. And let's be clear, this will happen. It's only a matter of time.

These measures, physical distancing and masking, can only serve to minimize transmission of circulating disease. It cannot, on a population level render, durable protection. Only widespread immunization and herd immunity can achieve this. The examples of smallpox, polio, MMR, and more are indisputable examples of this.

[Philc2001]

17 minutes ago, Ginseng said:

Yes, but.

The situation in Taiwan shows that blocking out the world, without establishing a high level of internal (herd) immunity means your population is safe and protected...until the outside world finds a way in or one of your citizens bring in something from the outside. And let's be clear, this will happen. It's only a matter of time.

These measures, physical distancing and masking, can only serve to minimize transmission of circulating disease. It cannot, on a population level render, durable protection. Only widespread immunization and herd immunity can achieve this. The examples of smallpox, polio, MMR, and more are indisputable examples of this.

I think we are in agreement. But wasn't that always the objective? It seemed abundantly clear, to me at least, that social distancing and masking were temporary, just buying time, until a cure or vaccine could be developed and administered. 

Taiwan and others prioritized and responded effectively. I don't think anyone assumes that distancing and masking was a 100% solution, but I think there is enough real world evidence and observations to prove they are effective at slowing down the spread and minimizing the death toll. I don't know how anyone can argue that it didn't. 

And it was always a matter of time. Buying time to get a cure, or in this case a vaccine. Now that we have vaccines, Taiwan and other countries that had measurable success stand out as case studies of what worked, and the US and India among others, are case studies of what did not work so well. Will that change behavior next time around? 

 

[Cairo]

1 hour ago, Philc2001 said:

Will that change behavior next time around? 

There is a hidden assumption in your post, which is that all pandemics are equal or similar or something like that.

The problem is that any new disease will be new, and the tradeoffs will be different, the ease of spread will be different, the hospitalization and death rates will be different, the rate of mutation will be different, the ease of developing vaccines and the efficacy of vaccines will be different etc etc etc.

The reality is that policymakers will be caught flat-footed the next time--at best they will "fight the last war" which rarely works.

[Ginseng]

1 hour ago, Philc2001 said:

I think we are in agreement. But wasn't that always the objective? It seemed abundantly clear, to me at least, that social distancing and masking were temporary, just buying time, until a cure or vaccine could be developed and administered. 

Taiwan and others prioritized and responded effectively. I don't think anyone assumes that distancing and masking was a 100% solution, but I think there is enough real world evidence and observations to prove they are effective at slowing down the spread and minimizing the death toll. I don't know how anyone can argue that it didn't. 

And it was always a matter of time. Buying time to get a cure, or in this case a vaccine. Now that we have vaccines, Taiwan and other countries that had measurable success stand out as case studies of what worked, and the US and India among others, are case studies of what did not work so well. Will that change behavior next time around? 

Yes, we are in agreement.

[Philc2001]

56 minutes ago, Cairo said:

There is a hidden assumption in your post, which is that all pandemics are equal or similar or something like that.

The problem is that any new disease will be new, and the tradeoffs will be different, the ease of spread will be different, the hospitalization and death rates will be different, the rate of mutation will be different, the ease of developing vaccines and the efficacy of vaccines will be different etc etc etc.

The reality is that policymakers will be caught flat-footed the next time--at best they will "fight the last war" which rarely works.

By the same measure, aren't you assuming that nothing was learned from this experience that can be applied to the next pandemic outbreak?

I agree there will undoubtedly be some degree of variability, but the spread of a pandemic is somewhat predictable. Where transmission is person to person, the pattern can be modeled. The playbook may be slightly different depending on the origin and the severity, etc. but slowing down the spread of a pandemic has an established protocol. 

Do you think China, Taiwan, HK, etc. learned nothing useful from SARS, bird flu, swine flu, etc. that influenced their response to COVID? Even in the US, there were obvious similarities between COVID and the 1918 pandemic outbreaks. 

No doubt, some politicians will repeat the same mistakes, for political reasons not merely because the next outbreak is unpredictable. 

 

[Ginseng]

6 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

it seems that your'e criticizing the masses for not complying 100% with mandates, yet you openly admit you yourself don't comply. 

This is an instance of the Nirvana fallacy which is, itself, a form of the False Dichotomy/All-or-Nothing fallacy. It's one of the most common tactics used by, for example, advocates of unrestricted gun ownerships to argue that no law can prevent all preventable gun-related fatalities and thus no law should be enacted. 

That's just the nuts and bolts of it. The more important point to understand is that in rhetoric and discourse, a logical fallacy is deployed when there is conclusion that must be supported by any means possible. Not that a conclusion should be arrived at through discovery and mutual discourse.

That is to say, "this is what I choose to believe, and any reasoning, argumentation, or information can only be considered valid if it serves to support this belief."

 

5 hours ago, Cairo said:

The reality is that policymakers will be caught flat-footed the next time--at best they will "fight the last war" which rarely works.

I agree. The goal should be to fight the best war (for the current global context), not the prior war or the final war. For as we probably know, there is no such thing, even in the eradication of natural diseases like smallpox.

[Ken Gargett]

7 hours ago, Ginseng said:

Yes, but.

The situation in Taiwan shows that blocking out the world, without establishing a high level of internal (herd) immunity means your population is safe and protected...until the outside world finds a way in or one of your citizens bring in something from the outside. And let's be clear, this will happen. It's only a matter of time.

These measures, physical distancing and masking, can only serve to minimize transmission of circulating disease. It cannot, on a population level render, durable protection. Only widespread immunization and herd immunity can achieve this. The examples of smallpox, polio, MMR, and more are indisputable examples of this.

not that i want to get involved in this (my job is to lob the initial hand grenade and then run away), but i think that what you are saying is the reason politicians in nz and australia continue to be so hard on lockdowns and border closures when there are negligible cases (and of course, because they see more votes in doing this than in not doing so - the instant that changes, the borders won't be able to open quick enough). they are concerned that if just one typhoid mary sneaks in, we could go the way of some other nations like the UK and US. and that would be political suicide. 

so when a business leader like the woman who runs virgin here says that borders should come down for the sake of the economy, even if it costs a few deaths, the politicians suddenly look like they are the caring ones (whoever thought they'd read or write that?). 

but i agree. almost impossible these days that it will not get in. of course that means politicians can say that they were right and that if only people had respected the masks and lockdowns and closures, it would never have happened. 

[Ginseng]

I think that's a pretty good reading, Ken.

Basically, in the US, there are two major priorities, establishing a durable public health condition (i.e., herd immunity) and preservation of the economy. It doesn't take a genius to know that both must happen for a true and full recovery to take place.

However, these two have thus far had a very small region of intersecting overlap. The cases for each are not entirely parallel and so the tactics, short-end and long-end considerations, resourcing, and messaging are not aligned. And then there's the head-scratching, blood pressure-elevating politicization of the issues. 

My feelings are still not sorted on the situation here in the US. In the first year of the pandemic, our country was an absolute travesty. But lately, after the start of widespread vaccinations for those 12-and above, the case and death counts have trended sharply down again. And this time, I hope that it will remain so because of no other reason than vaccinations.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Ginseng
typo

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, Ginseng said:

I think that's a pretty good reading, Ken.

Basically, in the US, there are two major priorities, establishing a durable public health condition (i.e., herd immunity) and preservation of the economy. It doesn't take a genius to know that both must happen for a true and full recovery can happen.

However, these two have thus far had a very small region of intersecting overlap. The cases for each are not entirely parallel and so the tactics, short-end and long-end considerations, resourcing, and messaging are not aligned. And then there's the head-scratching, blood pressure-elevating politicization of the issues. 

My feelings are still not sorted on the situation here in the US. In the first year of the pandemic, our country was an absolute travesty. But lately, after the start of widespread vaccinations for those 12-and above, the case and death counts have trended sharply down again. And this time, I hope that it will remain so because of no other reason than vaccinations.

yep. agree with all that.