CDC removing mask mandate what will you do with dc under 12

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

Take a look at Long Covid then take a look at ME/CFS. They appear to medical professionals all over the world to be very similar or the same thing. Same symptoms. both post-viral.

PEM has been a symptom unique to ME/CFS, meaning people get sicker with increased activity. Long Covid patients report having PEM. People with ME/CFS have lifelong debilitating illness with no known cure and a near-zero rate of spontaneous recovery.

Bill

I agree with you about long COVID being similar to CFS. That's what it has looked like for more than half a year. 

That being said, that has nothing to do with how likely it is. 

[Spy Car]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I agree with you about long COVID being similar to CFS. That's what it has looked like for more than half a year. 

That being said, that has nothing to do with how likely it is. 

Rather it has to do with how utterly debilitating Long Covid may prove to be. That's the risk assessment. ME/CFS is horrible life-sentence at this juncture.

Something like this would absolutely devastate the life of any child who contracted such an illness.

Bill

[Sdel]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

My attempt to dig into this has yielded the fact that we don't actually know that surgical masks help wounds not get infected, lol. Actually, the studies I've just found seemed more positive on them for containing viruses than for preventing infected wounds... 

Fascinating. 

That is not what the studies the nursing organizations found in Canada when they were legally fighting against the mandate of having to mask vs get flu shots.  Those studies found no conclusive evidence that masks did anything to reduce transmissions of viruses.  I believe they were repeated multiple times throughout the court process....and I believe the nurses won.

[Penelope]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

My attempt to dig into this has yielded the fact that we don't actually know that surgical masks help wounds not get infected, lol. Actually, the studies I've just found seemed more positive on them for containing viruses than for preventing infected wounds... 

Fascinating. 

😅

As much as we would like to think experts have all the expert knowledge, a lot of what is done in the real world is done mostly because some humans think it seems like a good idea. 🙂 Both before and during the pandemic. Science is amazing, and science is imperfect and lacking, both are true. 

[KSera]

38 minutes ago, Sdel said:

Surgical masks, like the example that is being used, do not....and have historically never been medically rated to claim such.  In health care settings, OTHER types of masks are used when staff are needed to protect against viral infections.

Surgical masks do catch droplets, which can contain infectious virus, so it does help, but I agree a standard surgical mask does not do really well with aerosols. It appears to decrease them, but it doesn’t contain them, which is why indoor spaces become less and less safe the more people are in them and the worse the ventilation is. A mask fitter or a well fitted cloth mask over a surgical mask can keep most aerosols from escaping. Or of course a fit tested N95 as the gold standard. 

24 minutes ago, Sdel said:

That is not what the studies the nursing organizations found in Canada when they were legally fighting against the mandate of having to mask vs get flu shots.  Those studies found no conclusive evidence that masks did anything to reduce transmissions of viruses.  I believe they were repeated multiple times throughout the court process....and I believe the nurses won.

This has been covered lots of times, but the studies being used for that didn’t test what they said they were testing. They were poorly designed. And there have been a lot of studies since then showing the effectiveness of masks in reducing transmission (and also some pretty interesting older studies that have surfaced that show the same thing). 

[melmichigan]

I can't believe we're a year into this and still debating masks. 

[Lucy the Valiant]

5 hours ago, Spy Car said:

The data is still weak, but there are very troubling anecdotal reports and surveys that are ominous.

For example, an anonymous, online survey developed by an organization of parents of children suffering from persisting symptoms post-Covid shows that 53.7% of these long haul children are experiencing "post-exertional malaise," which is the defining symptom of ME/CFS (which is a devastating life-long illness at this juncture).

The same self-reporting survey shows only 10% of children with Long Covid returning to previous levels of physical activity.

Do we need better data? You bet!

But we ignore the potential for catastrophic chronic illness at our peril.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202103.0271/v1

Bill

I'm not speaking for myself or mine, because we fall into the "other" category, . . . . BUT . . . couldn't most of these things also be said of a program that indiscriminately (I.e., without testing for antibodies / prior immunity) administers an experimental vaccine with brand new* technology to millions of children? Yes, VAERS needs work, but - ??? (I'm asking sincerely. These descriptions feel like the same to me.)

*I know it's been being worked on for years. It's "brand new" in the sense that mRNA delivery methods have not been used in children and then studied for long term, I think? (I don't know that for sure; maybe there HAVE been a few months/ 1-2+ years of data?) 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

I'm not speaking for myself or mine, because we fall into the "other" category, . . . . BUT . . . couldn't most of these things also be said of a program that indiscriminately (I.e., without testing for antibodies / prior immunity) administers an experimental vaccine with brand new* technology to millions of children? Yes, VAERS needs work, but - ??? (I'm asking sincerely. These descriptions feel like the same to me.)

*I know it's been being worked on for years. It's "brand new" in the sense that mRNA delivery methods have not been used in children and then studied for long term, I think? (I don't know that for sure; maybe there HAVE been a few months/ 1-2+ years of data?) 

Not remotely equivalent IMO.

Bill

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

56 minutes ago, Sdel said:

That is not what the studies the nursing organizations found in Canada when they were legally fighting against the mandate of having to mask vs get flu shots.  Those studies found no conclusive evidence that masks did anything to reduce transmissions of viruses.  I believe they were repeated multiple times throughout the court process....and I believe the nurses won.

I found a variety of studies. Here's a summary paper about whether masks protect the wearer: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

Their conclusion is the following: 

"In conclusion, there is a limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings. Mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection, especially including hand hygiene in both home and healthcare settings. Early initiation and correct and consistent wearing of masks/respirators may improve their effectiveness. However, this remains a major challenge – both in the context of a formal study and in everyday practice." 

And here's a study on the SICK people wearing masks, which showed that surgical masks were as good as N95s: 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/2/275/405108

I think there are actually fewer studies that have the patients mask up, hmm. Instead of measuring transmission in those cases, we've mostly just measured release of viral particles. 

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

36 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

I'm not speaking for myself or mine, because we fall into the "other" category, . . . . BUT . . . couldn't most of these things also be said of a program that indiscriminately (I.e., without testing for antibodies / prior immunity) administers an experimental vaccine with brand new* technology to millions of children? Yes, VAERS needs work, but - ??? (I'm asking sincerely. These descriptions feel like the same to me.)

*I know it's been being worked on for years. It's "brand new" in the sense that mRNA delivery methods have not been used in children and then studied for long term, I think? (I don't know that for sure; maybe there HAVE been a few months/ 1-2+ years of data?) 

You could argue that about the vaccine, yes. There's a risk/benefit analysis involved here. My personal strong opinion is that a virus is a wily little creature that has a lot of ways to hurt us. 

The mRNA vaccines make us make copies of the spike proteins. The COVID virus itself hijacks our cells in order to have it make more copies of the whole COVID virus (including the spike protein itself, of course.) In both cases, the innate translation process of the cell is used: with the mRNA vaccine, it's used in the normal way, I believe, and with the virus, the process is taken over by the virus. 

All the mRNA in the vaccine gets broken down quickly. We still don't seem to know whether in long haul COVID, the virus has been cleared from the body or not. 

So, for me, it seems more likely that the COVID virus itself is a fiercer intruder than the vaccine. But of course, people must think about this themselves. 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Galatea said:

I just said it.  Open wounds.  Foreign matter.  Big difference from breathing in tiny particles.

Droplets. It's about droplets. 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

If you're worried about kids spreading Covid in a grocery store right now - which seems like a very small risk, but not zero - then you could keep your little kids out of the grocery store, or make them wear super duper masks.  Or you could order delivery or have a designated vaccinated person do all your grocery shopping.

I'm not worried about them spreading it as much a worried about them catching it. I don't want my kid sick for a month or two, and one of my kids has multiple autoimmune diseases. Friends have kids who are immune suppressed. If unvaccinated adults are no longer wearing masks in stores, that puts those kids at risk if they go to a store. Not everyone has someone else to watch their kids whil they shop - one of my friends with the genetically immune suppressed kid is a single mom with a deadbeat dad. 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

For all of you who are concerned about long term effects of Covid on kids under 12, I hope you are equally concerned about effects of whatever vax they come out with for that age group, which are of course absolutely unknown at present.  Many of the people so worried about a tiny possibility of 2+ months symptoms are the same people eager to vax their kids as soon as it's legal.

The difference is that we have TONS of info on how viruses can cause long term issues, often not popping up right away. Whereas with vaccines we do not have evidence of them having long term side effects popping up way down the road, long after vaccination. 

1 hour ago, Sdel said:

Surgical masks, like the example that is being used, do not....and have historically never been medically rated to claim such.  In health care settings, OTHER types of masks are used when staff are needed to protect against viral infections.

But they contain droplets. They don't stop all viral particles, but they contain droplets, which are a major method of spread. 

1 hour ago, Sdel said:

That is not what the studies the nursing organizations found in Canada when they were legally fighting against the mandate of having to mask vs get flu shots.  Those studies found no conclusive evidence that masks did anything to reduce transmissions of viruses.  I believe they were repeated multiple times throughout the court process....and I believe the nurses won.

For crying out loud we have explained why that study DIDN"T show that many times over the past year. They compared surgical masks to cloth masks, but the non masking group was not included in the results. It didn't compare masks to no masks. Also, all the masking we have been doing, and disancting, has greatly lowered flu rates this year. 

[Not_a_Number]

50 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

I can't believe we're a year into this and still debating masks. 

Neither can the people who disagree with you. The problem is that they are convinced they don't do much. 

I think the interesting question is how to bridge this divide. 

[Sdel]

53 minutes ago, KSera said:

Surgical masks do catch droplets, which can contain infectious virus, so it does help, but I agree a standard surgical mask does not do really well with aerosols. It appears to decrease them, but it doesn’t contain them, which is why indoor spaces become less and less safe the more people are in them and the worse the ventilation is. A mask fitter or a well fitted cloth mask over a surgical mask can keep most aerosols from escaping. Or of course a fit tested N95 as the gold standard. 

This has been covered lots of times, but the studies being used for that didn’t test what they said they were testing. They were poorly designed. And there have been a lot of studies since then showing the effectiveness of masks in reducing transmission (and also some pretty interesting older studies that have surfaced that show the same thing). 

I’m going to cut this off by just kind of getting it out there that I, quite frankly, don’t care about the mask stuff and I’ve never invested myself even 10% of the mental energy that 90% of the rest y’all have; and I don’t really intended to now when it’s essentially “over”.  Just so y’all don’t waste your energy on me.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sdel said:

I’m going to cut this off by just kind of getting it out there that I, quite frankly, don’t care about the mask stuff and I’ve never invested myself even 10% of the mental energy that 90% of the rest y’all have; and I don’t really intended to now when it’s essentially “over”.  Just so y’all don’t waste your energy on me.

Do you mean you didn't invest much mental energy into finding out whether masks work? I can't say I've put in much, either. I did a bit of Googling and a bit of thinking and came to my conclusions and used them. 

[SlowRiver]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Neither can the people who disagree with you. The problem is that they are convinced they don't do much. 

I think the interesting question is how to bridge this divide. 

I'm not sure people are even saying they aren't useful at all. The problem is people keep comparing surgeons wearing masks in surgery to show that efficacy in other settings must be real and significant. But it's just not the same kind of thing, for a lot of reasons.

As far as I can see, people are also not so much questioning whether masks can be useful generally so much as, at what point would some of the more fearful be willing to say, ok, the risk is low enough. Because the risk is never going to be gone, just like with every other disease in existence, some quite serious.

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SlowRiver said:

I'm not sure people are even saying they aren't useful at all. The problem is people keep comparing surgeons wearing masks in surgery to show that efficacy in other settings must be real and significant. But it's just not the same kind of thing, for a lot of reasons.

As far as I can see, people are also not so much questioning whether masks can be useful generally so much as, at what point would some of the more fearful be willing to say, ok, the risk is low enough. Because the risk is never going to be gone, just like with every other disease in existence, some quite serious.

I'm not sure I appreciate being called "some of the more fearful." Perhaps a less loaded phrasing would be "some of the more cautious people." 

For the record, we're planning to see all of our friends this summer outside. We're planning to do outdoor dining and to have our babysitters come in again. We're opening a LOT since the numbers are so low. Unmasking indoors simply isn't on my radar as a way to improve our lives, though, because it doesn't add very much except risk. My kids are used to their masks and I expect them to keep them at least somewhat safer. I'd rather use my risk budget on something else. 

[kokotg]

I am curious how the people who believe masks don't do much of anything explain how there's been so little flu this year. It seems clear that something we're doing because of Covid caused that and that what we've done would have been enough against a less tricky virus. 

I've put my feelings about masks out there before; I started off assuming they were better than nothing but probably not enough in indoor spaces for extended periods. Then I looked at the differences in numbers between schools near me with masking and ones without (it's the difference between incidence rates similar to the larger community and incidence rates several times higher) and became much more convinced that masks work and work well when everyone is wearing them consistently. Putting that together with other evidence I've seen and read (and with a husband who didn't get covid despite teaching in full classrooms since september) is plenty for me. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by kokotg

[SlowRiver]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not sure I appreciate being called "some of the more fearful." Perhaps a less loaded phrasing would be "some of the more cautious people." 

For the record, we're planning to see all of our friends this summer outside. We're planning to do outdoor dining and to have our babysitters come in again. We're opening a LOT since the numbers are so low. Unmasking indoors simply isn't on my radar as a way to improve our lives, though, because it doesn't add very much except risk. My kids are used to their masks and I expect them to keep them at least somewhat safer. I'd rather use my risk budget on something else. 

I didn't have you in mind particularly, and I don't really care what other people do. If they want to mask until they day they die it's their business so long as they don't expect other people to. But most people would like to have some sense of when the risk is low enough that they can go back to a more normal routine.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

I've put my feelings about masks out there before; I started off assuming they were better than nothing but probably not enough in indoor spaces for extended periods. Then I looked at the differences in numbers between schools near me with masking and ones without (it's the difference between incidence rates similar to the larger community and incidence rates several times higher) and became much more convinced that masks work and work well when everyone is wearing them consistently. Putting that together with other evidence I've seen and read (and with a husband who didn't get covid despite teaching in full classrooms since september) is plenty for me. 

I think there are a couple of intriguing studies like that, actually -- comparing communities with mask mandates and without. The data gets a lot more robust on a population-wide level, as it turns out. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

I didn't have you in mind particularly, and I don't really care what other people do. If they want to mask until they day they die it's their business so long as they don't expect other people to. But most people would like to have some sense of when the risk is low enough that they can go back to a more normal routine.

Depends on one's risk factors, no? Some people mask regularly as is during flu season because they know themselves to be at serious risk from the flu. I'm not in that group, but it's not like I judge those people for their fear. 

I guess I think the conversation gets interesting if one lays out one's assumptions and one's goals and we talk about whether the assumptions are correct and whether the actions match the goals. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer for questions like "When is the risk low enough?" 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Sdel]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Do you mean you didn't invest much mental energy into finding out whether masks work? I can't say I've put in much, either. I did a bit of Googling and a bit of thinking and came to my conclusions and used them. 

The entirety of my thought process has been this:   The likelihood my family’s is not catching this is close to zero.  We’ll deal with whatever happens.  After that....why should I waste my time worrying about any of it.  And so, we haven’t.  

[kokotg]

2 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

I didn't have you in mind particularly, and I don't really care what other people do. If they want to mask until they day they die it's their business so long as they don't expect other people to. But most people would like to have some sense of when the risk is low enough that they can go back to a more normal routine.

I've already said that I'd be fine with mask mandates going away when everyone who wants to has had a chance to be vaccinated and/or when numbers are very low. 30,000 + cases a day in the US is not low (it's about the same as in September). I just don't think it's a good faith argument to say "if not now WHEN?!" when we're still seeing 600 deaths a day, kids can't be vaccinated yet, and our numbers are still where they were right before the fall/winter surge started. I don't THINK we're going back there, barring problems with variants in the future, but I think stopping precautions too early will cause the numbers to go down more slowly than they would otherwise. I'd rather they went down quickly.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

The entirety of my thought process has been this:   The likelihood my family’s is not catching this is close to zero.  We’ll deal with whatever happens.  After that....why should I waste my time worrying about any of it.  And so, we haven’t.  

OK. So you started with the assumption that you were definitely going to catch it. Do you mean at some point or this year? 

[happi duck]

The problem isn't a concern over vaccinated people not wearing masks.  The concern is unvaccinated people not wearing masks. (which they can now easily get away with.)

I don't trust the honor system in the US.

I'm concerned in light of how things went in India.  Eta: they were doing well and let their guard down too soon

Edited May 16, 2021 by happi duck

[Sdel]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK. So you started with the assumption that you were definitely going to catch it. Do you mean at some point or this year? 

We caught it almost immediately when it came to our area.  We knew we would as soon as it broke in the news cycle.   DH has been in every COVID death room (on his shifts) in his hospital for over a year.  It’ll be a year this summer for us.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, happi duck said:

The problem isn't a concern over vaccinated people not wearing masks.  The concern is unvaccinated people not wearing masks. (which they can now easily get away with.)

I don't trust the honor system in the US.

I'm concerned in light of how things went in India.

And by definition, kids are unvaccinated! This thread is about them! 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

We caught it almost immediately when it came to our area.  We knew we would as soon as it broke in the news cycle.   DH has been in every COVID death room (on his shifts) in his hospital for over a year.  It’ll be a year this summer for us.

Got it. So did you then figure it wouldn't be a big deal to catch it again? 

[Sdel]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Got it. So did you then figure it wouldn't be a big deal to catch it again? 

Well, apparently that is what “the science” is suggesting is it not?  Isn’t that kind of how immunity from every other virus generally works?  Why should I think this is any different?

[Spy Car]

I think there is a reason they are called "Covid death wards." But whateves.

Bill

[Matryoshka]

4 minutes ago, Sdel said:

Well, apparently that is what “the science” is suggesting is it not?  Isn’t that kind of how immunity from every other virus generally works?  Why should I think this is any different?

Because a crap ton of people have gotten it twice already. This is not chicken pox. Coronaviruses do not typically confer long-term immunity.  The vaccines, at least the mRNA ones, seem to be doing a much better job at that.  Although even there tge variants are finding a way around, they offer much better protection than previous actual infection. 

In South Africa, previous infection offered zero protection against the variant there, which is even worse than the AZ vax's 10% protection... the other vaxes stack up better with that one, but I'm still worried about the India variant. 

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, Sdel said:

Well, apparently that is what “the science” is suggesting is it not?  Isn’t that kind of how immunity from every other virus generally works?  Why should I think this is any different?

I think viruses vary a lot. Immunity can last a few months, or a year, or your whole life. It also depends on whether it has mutated.

So I take it you figured you are immune since you’ve had it already? 

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

In South Africa, previous infection offered zero protection against the variant there, which is even worse than the AZ vax's 10% protection... the other vaxes stack up better with that one, but I'm still worried about the India variant. 

Link that up? I know that a US study suggested decent immunity for half a year after an infection. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 hours ago, pinball said:

What I think will be a major public health crisis with children...

the little ones who have spent half or a third or a quarter of their lives without going out in public. To a grocery or library or the doctor or to a seldom seen friend or family member

there have been posts here which have spoken of this; not taking their 1 or 2 or 3 year olds ANYWHERE or a very, very limited small number of times they left their own property since last March. 

What does that do to little ones? What major part of their development did they miss? What social and emotional growth windows have shut?

I actually think it’s historically extremely normal for small children to have a very limited sphere in which they spend time.

[SKL]

51 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I'm not worried about them spreading it as much a worried about them catching it. I don't want my kid sick for a month or two, and one of my kids has multiple autoimmune diseases. Friends have kids who are immune suppressed. If unvaccinated adults are no longer wearing masks in stores, that puts those kids at risk if they go to a store. Not everyone has someone else to watch their kids whil they shop - one of my friends with the genetically immune suppressed kid is a single mom with a deadbeat dad. 

The difference is that we have TONS of info on how viruses can cause long term issues, often not popping up right away. Whereas with vaccines we do not have evidence of them having long term side effects popping up way down the road, long after vaccination.

1) I know all about being a single mom.  Still, you can keep your kids out of grocery stores, the way most of us have done for the past 15 months.  Or buy them a super duper mask.  Or both.

2) Yes we do have evidence of vaccines having long term bad effects down the road.  Like a lifetime sentence of debilitating epilepsy, as one example.  I don't understand the unwillingness to weigh risks of vaccines the same way we weigh risks of disease.

Do you think the CDC didn't weigh the risk of young kids being exposed to unmasked sick people before they made their latest announcement?  It is pretty clear that the risk to young kids is very low even if some of the maskless people have Covid.  From a public health perspective, there's no need to make everyone mask, whether or not they are vaccinated, to protect little kids from this virus.  If you feel differently on an individual basis, there are various options available to you.

[Sdel]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think viruses vary a lot. Immunity can last a few months, or a year, or your whole life. It also depends on whether it has mutated.

So I take it you figured you are immune since you’ve had it already? 

Well, my husband still attends all the almost non-existent currently COVID stuff and we haven’t had symptoms again.  It seems like our real life experience is matching exactly what is being suggested the vaccines do, don’t keep you from getting it but lessens the symptoms.  I’ve always expected it to act like the flu and I’ve always expected it to become endemic.

[Matryoshka]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Link that up? I know that a US study suggested decent immunity for half a year after an infection. 

I'll try and find it... it was for the SA variant specifically, not for repeat with the original strain (where I've also seen 6 mos) or other variants. I thought it was in a link someone shared here.  

But even if I've got some details wrong, the big picture is reinfections are happening,  especially with variants, and the vaxes (especially mRNA) give a longer lasting and more robust immune response than previous infection. This is *not* a one-and-done virus like CPox.

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

I'm not speaking for myself or mine, because we fall into the "other" category, . . . . BUT . . . couldn't most of these things also be said of a program that indiscriminately (I.e., without testing for antibodies / prior immunity) administers an experimental vaccine with brand new* technology to millions of children? Yes, VAERS needs work, but - ??? (I'm asking sincerely. These descriptions feel like the same to me.)

*I know it's been being worked on for years. It's "brand new" in the sense that mRNA delivery methods have not been used in children and then studied for long term, I think? (I don't know that for sure; maybe there HAVE been a few months/ 1-2+ years of data?) 

My father got his polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  His mom worked for the building Salk's lab was in, as a cleaner, and Salk needed test subjects for his vaccine so asked all the people who worked in the building to bring their kids by.  Phase 1-3 trials were a lot more casual in the 50's than they are today.  

[SKL]

35 minutes ago, happi duck said:

The problem isn't a concern over vaccinated people not wearing masks.  The concern is unvaccinated people not wearing masks. (which they can now easily get away with.)

I don't trust the honor system in the US.

I'm concerned in light of how things went in India.

I was gonna say ... this thread brings up a side topic of how many people we believe are shameless liars in the USA.  I personally would never lie about this kind of thing regardless of my feelings about masking.  My whole family is like this.  I can't speak for everyone in the USA, but I think the assumption that everyone is gonna fake it just because they can is not valid.  It probably is true for some, but I don't know how many.

India is really not comparable at all for many reasons.  A few that come to mind easily:

1) They aren't anywhere close to where we are on vaccinations.

2) The Indian lifestyle / culture involves a lot less personal space compared to the USA.  Not only is it culturally normal to be in each other's faces, but they have a lot less space geographically, not to mention limited modern ventilation etc.

3) The poverty level is such that for a large % of the population, there's no way to distribute adequate health information, and no way for the individuals to afford the measures we consider ridiculously easy.

[Lucy the Valiant]

9 minutes ago, Terabith said:

My father got his polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  His mom worked for the building Salk's lab was in, as a cleaner, and Salk needed test subjects for his vaccine so asked all the people who worked in the building to bring their kids by.  Phase 1-3 trials were a lot more casual in the 50's than they are today.  

That is a SUPER cool family legacy. ❤️

[Matryoshka]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

2) Yes we do have evidence of vaccines having long term bad effects down the road.  Like a lifetime sentence of debilitating epilepsy, as one example.  I don't understand the unwillingness to weigh risks of vaccines the same way we weigh risks of disease.

Those types of reactions show up very quickly after vaccination, and we would have seen it by now. I actually have kids at higher risk of an epileptic reaction to vaccines.  They have not had Pertussis Vax (doctors advice) because of this, and I separated the MMR  and started with just measles. One had three seizures in a week starting 1.5 weeks after the  measles Vax. She had to be on anti-seizure meds for two years and is now fine. None have had the rest of the MMR or boosters after that, but I am glad they're all immune to measles (titers confirm).

All three got vaxed for Covid. Eagerly. All is well. If there were effects like you mention, we'd have seen them already. They don't show up years later.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SlowRiver said:

But most people would like to have some sense of when the risk is low enough that they can go back to a more normal routine.

As has been said many times - when everyone can get vaccinated. 

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yes we do have evidence of vaccines having long term bad effects down the road.  Like a lifetime sentence of debilitating epilepsy, as one example. 

How soon after the vaccine did the epilepsy occur?

Edited May 16, 2021 by ktgrok

[Lucy the Valiant]

13 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I'll try and find it... it was for the SA variant specifically, not for repeat with the original strain (where I've also seen 6 mos) or other variants. I thought it was in a link someone shared here.  

But even if I've got some details wrong, the big picture is reinfections are happening,  especially with variants, and the vaxes (especially mRNA) give a longer lasting and more robust immune response than previous infection. This is *not* a one-and-done virus like CPox.

Actually, some of the science catching up is proving the opposite - a new study of > 300,000 people in Israel  (currently being peer-reviewed) is showing immunity from prior infection at least as strong as Pfizer vaccine, against reinfections and also variants. 

This is excellent news for people who have recovered from covid. (We have family members with active antibodies after a mild covid case 11 months later & holding strong.) 

 

Excerpt from the study:

What were the efficacy results?

The overall estimated efficacy of vaccination was 92·8% for documented infection, 94.2% for hospitalization, 94.4% for severe illness and 93.7% for death.

Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94.% for documented infection, 94.1% for hospitalization and 96·4% for severe illness.

Since only one death occurred in the recovered cohort, protection against death following prior infection was not estimated.

 

 

 

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Those types of reactions show up very quickly after vaccination, and we would have seen it by now. I actually have kids at higher risk of an epileptic reaction to vaccines.  They have not had Pertussis Vax (doctors advice) because of this, and I separated the MMR  and started with just measles. One had three seizures in a week starting 1.5 weeks after the  measles Vax. She had to be on anti-seizure meds for two years and is now fine. None have had the rest of the MMR or boosters after that, but I am glad they're all immune to measles (titers confirm).

All three got vaxed for Covid. Eagerly. All is well. If there were effects like you mention, we'd have seen them already. They don't show up years later.

Well my personal experience is that they do show up much later and continue throughout life.

If your kids have been vaxed, then they are not the population I'm talking about.  My kids have also gotten vaxed because they're also not the population I'm talking about.

Edited May 16, 2021 by SKL

[Matryoshka]

2 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Actually, some of the science catching up is proving the opposite - a new study of > 300,000 people in Israel  (currently being peer-reviewed) is showing immunity from prior infection at least as strong as Pfizer vaccine, against reinfections and also variants. 

This is excellent news for people who have recovered from covid. (We have family members with active antibodies after a mild covid case 11 months later & holding strong.) 

 

Excerpt from the study:

What were the efficacy results?

The overall estimated efficacy of vaccination was 92·8% for documented infection, 94.2% for hospitalization, 94.4% for severe illness and 93.7% for death.

Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94.% for documented infection, 94.1% for hospitalization and 96·4% for severe illness.

Since only one death occurred in the recovered cohort, protection against death following prior infection was not estimated.

Do they know which variants have gotten to Israel? That would be good news!

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Actually, some of the science catching up is proving the opposite - a new study of > 300,000 people in Israel  (currently being peer-reviewed) is showing immunity from prior infection at least as strong as Pfizer vaccine, against reinfections and also variants. 

This is excellent news for people who have recovered from covid. (We have family members with active antibodies after a mild covid case 11 months later & holding strong.) 

 

Excerpt from the study:

What were the efficacy results?

The overall estimated efficacy of vaccination was 92·8% for documented infection, 94.2% for hospitalization, 94.4% for severe illness and 93.7% for death.

Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94.% for documented infection, 94.1% for hospitalization and 96·4% for severe illness.

Since only one death occurred in the recovered cohort, protection against death following prior infection was not estimated.

 

 

 

This doesn't mention variants at all - which is more what I'm concerned about as far as reinfection. 

[Lucy the Valiant]

10 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Do they know which variants have gotten to Israel? That would be good news!

Looks like UK / B.1.1.7 is the predominant one - data still emerging: 

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/05/04/a-real-world-look-at-covid-19-vaccines-versus-new-variants/

From the link:

More study and time is needed to fully answer this question. But new data from Israel offers an early look at how the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is holding up in the real world against coronavirus “variants of concern,” including the B.1.1.7 “U.K. variant” and the B.1.351 “South African variant.” And, while there is some evidence of breakthrough infections, the findings overall are encouraging.

 

Looks like Israel is being vigilant with travel to / from India, though the data is still holding strong: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/dozens-of-cases-of-indian-covid-variant-found-in-israel-including-among-vaccinated-1.9758121

[Matryoshka]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well my personal experience is that they do show up years later and continue throughout life.

If your kids have been vaxed, then they are not the population I'm talking about.  My kids have also gotten vaxed because they're also not the population I'm talking about.

Can you share what experience you have with things that show up years after vaccination? I've shared detailed personal info here (may delete later, so please don't quote), so pony up instead of offering vague generalities. If these effects do show up years later, how the heck could you trace it back to the Vax vs something else?  How is your one personal experience something that can be extrapolated to all vaccines or to the larger population?

My kids are definitely the population you're talking about. They have a genetic predisposition to seizures (from infancy).  They all spent the first two years of their lives on anti-seizure meds. One of mine has a medically documented reaction of multiple seizures after a vaccine. Not all vaccines have the same seizure risks. I have not even heard of any reports of that from this vax.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Matryoshka

[Lucy the Valiant]

16 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

This doesn't mention variants at all - which is more what I'm concerned about as far as reinfection. 

Maybe I misread - wouldn't the extremely low incidence of breakthrough reinfection apply to the variants? (study data ended March 20, 2021, I believe). 

From the study (bolding mine):

The researchers say the study suggests that both the BNT162b2 vaccine and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are effective against both subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and other COVID-19–related outcomes.

“Moreover, the effectiveness seems similar for both cohorts,” they add.

 

 

 

Editing to add: (specifically for the India variant in Israel) - hopeful news - 

https://theprint.in/world/israel-warns-against-indian-covid-strain-experts-say-pfizer-vaccine-can-neutralise-it/649123/

“Assume the 5 children were <16 and thus unvaccinated. That gives us 32 cases among unvaccinated adults, and 4 cases among vaccinated adults. The basic calculation for effectiveness then gives us a remarkable 98 per cent against B.1.617,” said Bergstrom.

“Now — even with these worst-case assumptions — we estimate 92 per cent effectiveness for the vaccine using the same calculation … Worst case point estimates is that the Pfizer vaccine is as effective against B.1.617 as it is against wild type,” he added.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Lucy the Valiant

[ktgrok]

12 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well my personal experience is that they do show up much later and continue throughout life.

 

You are saying we have lots of evidence of people getting a vaccine, then years later having symptoms of illness, that is proven to be caused by the vaccine they got years ago? 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Neither can the people who disagree with you. The problem is that they are convinced they don't do much. 

I think the interesting question is how to bridge this divide. 

I don’t think most people who are convinced masks don’t do much want to bridge the divide. In my experience, they don’t actually want masks to work. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want them to, but that’s what I’ve been hearing from them. 

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not sure I appreciate being called "some of the more fearful." Perhaps a less loaded phrasing would be "some of the more cautious people." 

Or perhaps “some of the more considerate” 🤷‍♀️

1 hour ago, Sdel said:

The entirety of my thought process has been this:   The likelihood my family’s is not catching this is close to zero.  We’ll deal with whatever happens.  After that....why should I waste my time worrying about any of it.  And so, we haven’t.  

That does change things significantly if that was your calculus. What about for other people who were invested in not catching it? Those are the people masks would be for protecting, all the more if you fully expected you would indeed catch it. Or maybe you stayed home all the time so you wouldn’t pass it to anyone else.  

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Do you think the CDC didn't weigh the risk of young kids being exposed to unmasked sick people before they made their latest announcement?  It is pretty clear that the risk to young kids is very low even if some of the maskless people have Covid.  From a public health perspective, there's no need to make everyone mask, whether or not they are vaccinated, to protect little kids from this virus.  If you feel differently on an individual basis, there are various options available to you.

That’s not what the CDC said, though. They were weighing the risk of kids being exposed to VACCINATED people without masks,  not to unvaccinated. Your statement there reinforces what people are concerned about though, that people are going to think it means they are free to expose others even if they aren’t vaccinated. I know you have been vaccinated, and you said you wouldn’t lie about it, which is encouraging to hear, but what you say above is how it seems a lot of people are interpreting it.

Edited May 16, 2021 by KSera
I make so many typos 🙄