Jump to content

Menu

CDC mask announcement (a new thread)


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

But there are some things that are NOT flat earth material either.  There are nuances that this board misses sometimes.  I am a lot like Jean except I haven't done dining until very recently and even then, the time we went, we chose to eat outdoors. No one in my circle of friends has berated me for wearing a mask.  Some of them put on masks as well just to make me feel comfortable. One particular couple are our best friends. They are not getting vaccinated.  They have all of their other vaccines. They are not anti-mask. Yet I feel like this board would hate them.  Maybe not.  Sounds like Jean and others are more reasonable.  But many times this board has truly sounded like a sounding board with no room for nuance.

I think perhaps you might be missing the nuance on this board. I don’t know anyone here who has said anything that makes me think they would hate your friends. I have people I know and like who are not vaccinated either. People widely agreed that it would be fine for a vaccinated team to go hang out with friends, even though a couple of them are not vaccinated and a couple even have Covid right now. You mentioned in a recent post that you think people think the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end, which makes me think that you are reading a lot of extra things into posts here.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: breakthrough Covid...if the vaccine has something like a 95% chance of protecting you (and nearly 100% chance of keeping you from dying), does that 95% mean each time you encounter Covid, there is a 95% chance of not getting it, or does that mean that 95% of people won't get Covid? This is poorly worded, but I am coming from a genetic POV. If someone has a dominant gene for a disease, each child has a 50% chance, individually, of getting that disease. But you can have ten kids, and all ten can end up with that disease. 

Feel free to attempt to clarify my question before answering, lol!!! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Muttichen1 said:

Really???

I know my post count is low, but I've been here many years.  I used to post regularly but my account was mixed up in one of the board changes and I've been lurking since then.

Just jumping in to say that your post count may be low, but I definitely remember you from the college boards. Our kids both went to Princeton in 2016 (if I recall correctly). You disappeared after that and I always wondered if our kids knew each other. Glad to see you back.

We share similar views on the topic being discussed here 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think perhaps you might be missing the nuance on this board. I don’t know anyone here who has said anything that makes me think they would hate your friends. I have people I know and like who are not vaccinated either. People widely agreed that it would be fine for a vaccinated team to go hang out with friends, even though a couple of them are not vaccinated and a couple even have Covid right now. You mentioned in a recent post that you think people think the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end, which makes me think that you are reading a lot of extra things into posts here.

I have unvaccinated friends, too. I certainly don’t lecture them. The only person I’ve had issues with this pandemic was posting nonsense about how it was all overblown a year ago... despite being in NYC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Re: breakthrough Covid...if the vaccine has something like a 95% chance of protecting you (and nearly 100% chance of keeping you from dying), does that 95% mean each time you encounter Covid, there is a 95% chance of not getting it, or does that mean that 95% of people won't get Covid? This is poorly worded, but I am coming from a genetic POV. If someone has a dominant gene for a disease, each child has a 50% chance, individually, of getting that disease. But you can have ten kids, and all ten can end up with that disease. 

Feel free to attempt to clarify my question before answering, lol!!! 

Nate Silver asked this same question on twitter awhile back, which was the first time it occurred to me that's a really good question that I'm surprised no one seems to really know the answer to. Or maybe a lot of people know it, but I've yet to see an answer from someone who seems to actually know what they're talking about. I would guess it's a mix of both: there are some people who will have more trouble producing antibodies for various reasons (immune problems, medications, age, etc) but then maybe also what viral load you're exposed to has something to do with it? But I don't know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Re: breakthrough Covid...if the vaccine has something like a 95% chance of protecting you (and nearly 100% chance of keeping you from dying), does that 95% mean each time you encounter Covid, there is a 95% chance of not getting it, or does that mean that 95% of people won't get Covid? This is poorly worded, but I am coming from a genetic POV. If someone has a dominant gene for a disease, each child has a 50% chance, individually, of getting that disease. But you can have ten kids, and all ten can end up with that disease. 

Feel free to attempt to clarify my question before answering, lol!!! 

Neither of those.  It means that during the trial a person who had received the vaccine was 95% less likely to get Covid than a person who didn't.  The calculation is % of placebo recipients who got sick minus percent of vaccine recipients who got sick divided by % of placebo recipients who got sick.

 

Edit:  So if a theoretical unvaccinated person has a 10% chance of catching Covid in a particular situation an otherwise identical but vaccinated person would have a .5% chance of catching it in the same situation.

Edited by Danae
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Danae said:

Neither of those.  It means that during the trial a person who had received the vaccine was 95% less likely to get Covid than a person who didn't.  The calculation is % of placebo recipients who got sick minus percent of vaccine recipients who got sick divided by % of placebo recipients who got sick.

I'm not kbutton, but I think what she was asking is if we know WHY that's true...for the people who have breakthrough infections, is it because they didn't develop antibodies (the vaccine didn't work for them for whatever reason) or is it something about the exposure they had and maybe they wouldn't have gotten it had they been exposed under different circumstances. It's not something the trials (or any real world data) would show....but is it something that immunologists know about vaccines in general (or this particular vaccine)? ETA: or it may be that I misinterpreted and that's not  what she was asking at all, but it's what wonder anyway 🙂

Edited by kokotg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kokotg said:

I'm not kbutton, but I think what she was asking is if we know WHY that's true...for the people who have breakthrough infections, is it because they didn't develop antibodies (the vaccine didn't work for them for whatever reason) or is it something about the exposure they had and maybe they wouldn't have gotten it had they been exposed under different circumstances. It's not something the trials (or any real world data) would show....but is it something that immunologists know about vaccines in general (or this particular vaccine)?

I don’t think we know for sure why, but I think there are a lot of educated guesses we can make based on the fact that the vast majority of breakthrough cases are in people with risk factors for not mounting a protective response: very elderly, organ transplant, immune suppressed or compromised.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Re: breakthrough Covid...if the vaccine has something like a 95% chance of protecting you (and nearly 100% chance of keeping you from dying), does that 95% mean each time you encounter Covid, there is a 95% chance of not getting it, or does that mean that 95% of people won't get Covid?

No idea but it’s not 95% chance of protection.

From UK gov https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-b-1-617-2-variant-after-2-doses

”Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 variant is similar after 2 doses compared to the B.1.1.7 (Kent) variant dominant in the UK, and we expect to see even higher levels of effectiveness against hospitalisation and death.

The study found that, for the period from 5 April to 16 May:

  • the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88% effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 variant 2 weeks after the second dose, compared to 93% effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 variant
  • 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 60% effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 variant compared to 66% effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 variant
  • both vaccines were 33% effective against symptomatic disease from B.1.617.2, 3 weeks after the first dose compared to around 50% effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 variant

The analysis included data for all age groups from 5 April to cover the period since the B.1.617.2 variant emerged. It included 1,054 people confirmed as having the B.1.617.2 variant through genomic sequencing, including participants of several ethnicities. Data published on Thursday 20 May for vaccine effectiveness covered the period since December for those aged over 65.

The difference in effectiveness between the vaccines after 2 doses may be explained by the fact that rollout of second doses of AstraZeneca was later than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and other data on antibody profiles show it takes longer to reach maximum effectiveness with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

As with other variants, even higher levels of effectiveness are expected against hospitalisation and death. There are currently insufficient cases and follow-up periods to estimate vaccine effectiveness against severe outcomes from the B.1.617.2 variant. PHE will continue to evaluate this over the coming weeks.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Danae said:

Neither of those.  It means that during the trial a person who had received the vaccine was 95% less likely to get Covid than a person who didn't.  The calculation is % of placebo recipients who got sick minus percent of vaccine recipients who got sick divided by % of placebo recipients who got sick.

 

Edit:  So if a theoretical unvaccinated person has a 10% chance of catching Covid in a particular situation an otherwise identical but vaccinated person would have a .005% chance of catching it in the same situation.

Your edit is off... it’s 0.5% or just 0.005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don’t think we know for sure why, but I think there are a lot of educated guesses we can make based on the fact that the vast majority of breakthrough cases are in people with risk factors for not mounting a protective response: very elderly, organ transplant, immune suppressed or compromised.

I think that matters a lot more if we don't get vaccination rates high enough to hit herd immunity (or if some places don't). In a population where almost everyone is vaccinated with a very effective vaccine, those few people would be pretty well protected anyway. If vaccination rates don't improve in a lot of areas, there's a lot more risk to those people and it makes sense to try to identify them and maybe do additional doses (if that would work). This is why my husband who takes an immunosuppressant had his antibodies tested post vaccine. He had them, but if he hadn't, I don't know that he could have done anything at this point other than continue to take precautions like pre-vaccination. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I'm not kbutton, but I think what she was asking is if we know WHY that's true...for the people who have breakthrough infections, is it because they didn't develop antibodies (the vaccine didn't work for them for whatever reason) or is it something about the exposure they had and maybe they wouldn't have gotten it had they been exposed under different circumstances. It's not something the trials (or any real world data) would show....but is it something that immunologists know about vaccines in general (or this particular vaccine)? ETA: or it may be that I misinterpreted and that's not  what she was asking at all, but it's what wonder anyway 🙂

 

I can see that.  But either way you have to apply the number as a reduction from the unvaccinated case, not as a percentage of vaccinated people.  Even if that wasn't the question I think it's an important point. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I'm not kbutton, but I think what she was asking is if we know WHY that's true...for the people who have breakthrough infections, is it because they didn't develop antibodies (the vaccine didn't work for them for whatever reason) or is it something about the exposure they had and maybe they wouldn't have gotten it had they been exposed under different circumstances. It's not something the trials (or any real world data) would show....but is it something that immunologists know about vaccines in general (or this particular vaccine)? ETA: or it may be that I misinterpreted and that's not  what she was asking at all, but it's what wonder anyway 🙂

https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-infections-cdc-data.html

Experts still don’t know why some people aren’t completely protected by the vaccines. According to Bloom, early unpublished research suggests that some people respond to them by making the wrong kind of antibody. Instead of making antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—which is what’s supposed to happen—some people appear to make antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein, and those antibodies don’t have the same protective effect. Other early research, he said, shows some people don’t make antibodies in response to the vaccines at all.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mathnerd said:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-infections-cdc-data.html

Experts still don’t know why some people aren’t completely protected by the vaccines. According to Bloom, early unpublished research suggests that some people respond to them by making the wrong kind of antibody. Instead of making antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—which is what’s supposed to happen—some people appear to make antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein, and those antibodies don’t have the same protective effect. Other early research, he said, shows some people don’t make antibodies in response to the vaccines at all.

 

Which makes total sense.  There are those people that caught chicken pox multiple times, or COVID multiple times or don’t have titers for something despite being vaccinated. Bodies are weird and in populations of hundreds of millions there will be oddities. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kokotg said:

While at this point I'm not sure anything short of a study where they put 10,000 people without covid in an enclosed space for 8 hours with a bunch of covid positive people and gave half of them masks and half of them nothing (which, obviously, isn't going to happen) would convince those who are still mask skeptics...here's an interesting report from the CDC that showed a 37% reduction in cases in schools that required teachers and staff to mask vs. those that didn't. Improved ventilation was similarly helpful (39% reduction). Interestingly, they didn't see the same reduction when student masking was required. I would guess that's because they only looked at K-5, so generally kids under 10 who seem to spread covid at a much lower rate than older kids and adults. (I saw another report recently that showed that it was considerably more common for teachers to spread to students than the other way around, although there were cases of both). I'd love to see a report on high schools and/or middle schools to see how they compared. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e1.htm?s_cid=mm7021e1_w

A piece of non-study, anecdotal information - the university where I work, which has 10,000 students in a normal year, had zero cases of transmission in class. Students and lecturers were masked and the rooms were at low capacity. All the transmission was due to unmasked socialising in residences. We know this because attendance was taken at each class.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kokotg said:

While at this point I'm not sure anything short of a study where they put 10,000 people without covid in an enclosed space for 8 hours with a bunch of covid positive people and gave half of them masks and half of them nothing (which, obviously, isn't going to happen) would convince those who are still mask skeptics...here's an interesting report from the CDC that showed a 37% reduction in cases in schools that required teachers and staff to mask vs. those that didn't. Improved ventilation was similarly helpful (39% reduction). Interestingly, they didn't see the same reduction when student masking was required. I would guess that's because they only looked at K-5, so generally kids under 10 who seem to spread covid at a much lower rate than older kids and adults. (I saw another report recently that showed that it was considerably more common for teachers to spread to students than the other way around, although there were cases of both). I'd love to see a report on high schools and/or middle schools to see how they compared. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e1.htm?s_cid=mm7021e1_w

I'm also guessing it's because even in schools where kids masked in the classroom, frequent mask breaks were included. So, for example, in my local schools, kids pretty much mask only when they are sitting at their desks. PE, Recess, and lunch are all unmasked, and, based on what I observe being  across the street from the school, aren't particularly socially distanced. Most kids also rip theirs off as they're leaving the building. In a school week, there is the equivalent of about a full day unmasked, but in fairly close contact with others and for most of the school year, a good part of that time will be indoors due to weather conditions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The school district in my town just decided that starting tomorrow masks are optional in schools.  They were going to keep it until June 10th and then it would have only effected in person summer school.  But they had 10 parents and a high school student that argued that they wanted them to be optional.   Their reasons?  Because since Feb. they have only had 1 Covid case at a time.   With the warmer weather and some rooms that don't have AC the kids were having a hard time breathing, hard time breathing, sweating, anxiety and can't keep focus.  Also that other districts around us don't require masks and they are afraid that students will leave next year for those districts.  $$$$ 

And that they are worried about a referendum won't pass next year because of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

I'm also guessing it's because even in schools where kids masked in the classroom, frequent mask breaks were included. So, for example, in my local schools, kids pretty much mask only when they are sitting at their desks. PE, Recess, and lunch are all unmasked, and, based on what I observe being  across the street from the school, aren't particularly socially distanced. Most kids also rip theirs off as they're leaving the building. In a school week, there is the equivalent of about a full day unmasked, but in fairly close contact with others and for most of the school year, a good part of that time will be indoors due to weather conditions.

Yeah, another CDC report focused on a small school district near me where everyone was masked...except for the exceptions like when all the elementary kids ate lunch togther in their full capacity classrooms. It's actually even more impressive how much of a reduction they saw with just masked teachers given all that. I'd REALLY like to see high school numbers w/students masked vs. not (I've seen my OWN numbers, and they show a very substantial reduction when students are masked), but I'd also like to see numbers when there are and aren't those kind of exceptions (masked vs. not for indoor sports. Lunches are trickier. I know some schools have done half days to avoid the lunch issue, but is there much else that can be done? At least in areas where it's too cold for eating outside much of the year? I mean, too late to figure it out now since the school year's almost over and one hopes it will be a non-issue or at least much, much less of one by fall....)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Yeah, another CDC report focused on a small school district near me where everyone was masked...except for the exceptions like when all the elementary kids ate lunch togther in their full capacity classrooms. It's actually even more impressive how much of a reduction they saw with just masked teachers given all that. I'd REALLY like to see high school numbers w/students masked vs. not (I've seen my OWN numbers, and they show a very substantial reduction when students are masked), but I'd also like to see numbers when there are and aren't those kind of exceptions (masked vs. not for indoor sports. Lunches are trickier. I know some schools have done half days to avoid the lunch issue, but is there much else that can be done? At least in areas where it's too cold for eating outside much of the year? I mean, too late to figure it out now since the school year's almost over and one hopes it will be a non-issue or at least much, much less of one by fall....)

Most of the teachers I know were doing things like eating in their cars so they could unmask safely. Also, here a lot of the teachers were paying for their own higher quality masks and face shields, while most of the kids had either paper disposables or cute cloth masks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

A piece of non-study, anecdotal information - the university where I work, which has 10,000 students in a normal year, had zero cases of transmission in class. Students and lecturers were masked and the rooms were at low capacity. All the transmission was due to unmasked socialising in residences. We know this because attendance was taken at each class.

Same for our school. They did very thorough contact tracing. No cases from classes or labs which were all masked and distanced. The few we had, from socializing/living together. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Same for our school. They did very thorough contact tracing. No cases from classes or labs which were all masked and distanced. The few we had, from socializing/living together. 

Same here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s another interesting thing that’s happening for us. We are having an outdoor grad ceremony/party for my dd. About 80% of the invited are vaccinated. The others include a handful of adults and some children. Most of the unvaccinated adults have RSVPed that they can’t come bc they are not vaccinated. I wasn’t expecting that.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, freesia said:

Here’s another interesting thing that’s happening for us. We are having an outdoor grad ceremony/party for my dd. About 80% of the invited are vaccinated. The others include a handful of adults and some children. Most of the unvaccinated adults have RSVPed that they can’t come bc they are not vaccinated. I wasn’t expecting that.

That’s so wonderful they are being honest and doing the right thing by not going. 👍 Bummer that so many adults still aren’t vaxxed though. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

Many on this board seem to have been much more cautious than public health guidelines ever recommended in this country, and that’s fine, but you can’t expect others to hold that same perspective. I think it’s a minority of people, for example, that have not had their minor children interact with any friends without masks and other precautions since last March. It is hard for me to imagine requiring (rather than encouraging) that of most teens 14-15+, or thinking that just because parents tell them to do this, that they are actually being as careful as you think they are when you can’t see them. 

 

 

Even if one believes that a mask would stop viral infection, There are also competing safety concerns. 
 

For example, would a teen (or could be any age really) driver be more at risk due to potential Covid in symptom free, healthy seeming passengers and no mask, versus potential risks from wearing a mask and having possible reduced visibility (some masks stick out), and possible decreased alertness due to increased CO2 build up? 
 

There’s a Del Bigtree video of his son breathing in various masks using an OSHA approved meter to measure the levels in the mask and showing build up of CO2 to unhealthy levels.  Even a plastic face shield open at the bottom got surprisingly high levels but nowhere near as bad as the masks. 

 

I had thought that CO2 build up issue wasn’t really significant   because of wearing masks for lab work in times past and due to ME/CFS/TILT type problems in more recent years. But now it appears to be being shown that it is a problem. Maybe even reduces surgeon alertness in one study one of my physician relatives showed me. And perhaps some feeling Unwell over the years in circumstances where I have to mask has been due to the mask itself without my having realized it. 
 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

CDC is cautious and slow. They could have made this recommendation months ago. 
They were very slow on schools and outdoor advice, and other things, according some of the experts.
Not only do many people not follow their advice on runny eggs, unpasteurized cheese, alcohol, exercise, and many other things, but even on infectious disease, I saw something about their Zika recommendations and wonder if everyone in the US follows it or even knows about it. https://www.cdc.gov/zika/prevention/sexual-transmission-prevention.html
They recommend, for example, sexual precautions (abstinence or condoms) for pregnant women and their partners when traveling anywhere where Zika has ever been diagnosed, which includes the US (so would include everyone that lives here), most of the rest of N and S America, and France.
 

Interesting. 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

I am sure we could find other examples where people have no idea they are not following CDC guidelines in some area, or they do know and don’t care, because it is a matter of personal choice. 
 

——————-

I do have a lot of sympathy for those with health concerns that mean they are at much higher risk and that their vaccination may not protect them. But doesn’t this need to be calibrated to pre-pandemic risks? People with certain conditions/meds have to be careful all of the time, not just with Covid, and probably aren’t as protected from other vaccines, either.

 

Good points.
 

I think media coverage of Covid has been very different than pre2020. It is kept center news. 

A big problem imo is that vaccinated/unvaccinated seems to be a wedge being driven between people

 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

Cases of Covid are now below the levels seen in a mild flu season, and no one expected special precautions pre-2020, even though people were certainly contracting flu at group events. And flu vaccines are notorious for their low levels of effectiveness. We have been through a terrible time with a new infectious disease, but now that it is waning, we have to get back to some sort of balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

 

Even if one believes that a mask would stop viral infection, There are also competing safety concerns. 
 

For example, would a teen (or could be any age really) driver be more at risk due to potential Covid in symptom free, healthy seeming passengers and no mask, versus potential risks from wearing a mask and having possible reduced visibility (some masks stick out), and possible decreased alertness due to increased CO2 build up? 

Was masking while driving ever recommended? I mean, I did see some people doing it, and I think it’s mostly because they were in the habit of keeping it on all day and not touching it, but I didn’t think it was widely done.

I’d driven other people in my car when I needed to, but cracking windows when possible seemed like the better choice than driving with my mask on. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Penelope said:

Was masking while driving ever recommended? I mean, I did see some people doing it, and I think it’s mostly because they were in the habit of keeping it on all day and not touching it, but I didn’t think it was widely done.

I’d driven other people in my car when I needed to, but cracking windows when possible seemed like the better choice than driving with my mask on. 

It was recommended for certain situations (Uber drivers, public transportation), and sometimes it just makes more sense than taking it on and off (a delivery driver making frequent stops). I had a couple rare occasions to do so—a couple times where I was driving from point A to point B a very short distance apart (sometimes the same parking lot) and I didn’t want to do the whole sanitize, doff, sanitize don routine for just a short drive), and once when I had to pick up a relative from a week long hospital stay and drive in the same car. We both masked and had windows cracked as much as we could handle (it was winter). It bothers me when people get on other people’s case for masking while driving or in other situations where it usually isn’t necessary (not saying you, just in general as I often hear people make fun of driving while masked). No one knows what reasons someone might have to be more cautious, or just logistics, like only having one mask and not wanting to cross contaminate by removing it. 
 

It always strikes me ironic to hear the same people who think that a mask won’t trap virus particles think that it will trap CO2 particles.  There’s no logic there. 

Edited by KSera
  • Like 14
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KSera said:

It was recommended for certain situations (Uber drivers, public transportation), and sometimes it just makes more sense than taking it on and off (a delivery driver making frequent stops). 

Public transportation, of course, and I have seen it but totally forgot. ☺️ Bless them for putting themselves out there for so many months. 
 

I do find them uncomfortable and distracting at times, so I have a lot of sympathy for people that have had to do that for so long. 
 

The only thing that I would be concerned about while driving with a mask is the fogging for someone who wears glasses or sunglasses. And you could have everyone else who isn’t driving wear one. 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

The only thing that I would be concerned about while driving with a mask is the fogging for someone who wears glasses or sunglasses. And you could have everyone else who isn’t driving wear one. 

Yeah, fogging would be an issue while driving. It would be important for anyone who needed to drive with a mask to have a solution that didn’t fog up their glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I'm interested to see how this is playing out around the US....I said right after the announcement that most people were still masking in my local area. A couple of weeks later DH is just back from Lowes and Kroger and reports very few masks and that Kroger is making announcements over the loudspeaker saying that vaccinated people don't have to mask. That said, I do live in an area that I would imagine has a pretty high vaccination rate (although I'm not sure--last I checked, I could only see numbers for where people had gotten vaccinated, as opposed to where they live, so I don't know of any way to actually check). We'll see what numbers do--both covid numbers and vaccination rates--so far neither seems to be reacting much, but it's early days. And I will cross my fingers that it doesn't make for a miserable summer for/with my 8 year old.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Kroger is making announcements over the loudspeaker saying that vaccinated people don't have to mask

I’m curious how this is worded. It seems like it would be odd for them to be specifically announcing that vaccinated people didn’t have to mask, as if they were discouraging people from wearing them. It makes more sense if it’s in the context of them saying that unvaccinated people are required to mask. I’ve been disappointed to see that in our area, which had mask mandates indoors until the CDC changed the guidance, a lot of stores have signs just suggesting that they encourage unvaccinated people to mask, which I don’t understand. If they changed the guidelines to fit the new CDC guidance, that’s not it. It doesn’t match what our governor or county are saying the rules are, either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our dog was hurt this weekend and had to have eye surgery Monday. We had to drive an hour away and that county has no mask mandate and also has the highest vaccination rates in the state. No one was masked inside the clinic and dh and I even ended up removing ours because it was stressful and we were there so long. It was strange but surprisingly I wasn’t really worried about anything Covid related and trust my vaccine. I’m still going to mask most places but I’m not really too worried at the moment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m curious how this is worded. It seems like it would be odd for them to be specifically announcing that vaccinated people didn’t have to mask, as if they were discouraging people from wearing them. It makes more sense if it’s in the context of them saying that unvaccinated people are required to mask. I’ve been disappointed to see that in our area, which had mask mandates indoors until the CDC changed the guidance, a lot of stores have signs just suggesting that they encourage unvaccinated people to mask, which I don’t understand. If they changed the guidelines to fit the new CDC guidance, that’s not it. It doesn’t match what our governor or county are saying the rules are, either.

He says it says something about how they're always thinking of the health of customers, etc, blah, blah....at this point, customers, employees, etc. who are fully vaccinated do not need to mask. I asked if it said anything about unvaccinated people still needing to mask, but he doesn't really remember. I'll have to go myself to get the full story 😉

But, yeah, I'm not surprised. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my county's schools used this as an opportunity to announce that masks will be optional but recommended as of June 1 for everyone. And blamed the CDC announcement for it, even though it very clearly goes against what the CDC actually said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

Our dog was hurt this weekend and had to have eye surgery Monday. We had to drive an hour away and that county has no mask mandate and also has the highest vaccination rates in the state. No one was masked inside the clinic and dh and I even ended up removing ours because it was stressful and we were there so long. It was strange but surprisingly I wasn’t really worried about anything Covid related and trust my vaccine. I’m still going to mask most places but I’m not really too worried at the moment.

I hope your dog is ok.  That sounds super stressful.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m curious how this is worded. It seems like it would be odd for them to be specifically announcing that vaccinated people didn’t have to mask, as if they were discouraging people from wearing them. It makes more sense if it’s in the context of them saying that unvaccinated people are required to mask. I’ve been disappointed to see that in our area, which had mask mandates indoors until the CDC changed the guidance, a lot of stores have signs just suggesting that they encourage unvaccinated people to mask, which I don’t understand. If they changed the guidelines to fit the new CDC guidance, that’s not it. It doesn’t match what our governor or county are saying the rules are, either.

My local store went from giant sign "face coverings required" to small sign that "encouraged" that unvaccinated wear masks to now the small sign is "face coverings required for unvaccinated people"...which I think is what was meant all along.  It took a minute to get things cleared up!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KSera said:

It always strikes me ironic to hear the same people who think that a mask won’t trap virus particles think that it will trap CO2 particles.  There’s no logic there. 

One more example of the extreme lack of scientific understanding behind all these conspiracy theories.   

 

73237564_10222650594604152_5600280663949764443_o.jpg

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joker2 said:

Our dog was hurt this weekend and had to have eye surgery Monday. We had to drive an hour away and that county has no mask mandate and also has the highest vaccination rates in the state. No one was masked inside the clinic and dh and I even ended up removing ours because it was stressful and we were there so long. It was strange but surprisingly I wasn’t really worried about anything Covid related and trust my vaccine. I’m still going to mask most places but I’m not really too worried at the moment.

The more important thing is... Is your dog okay? I hope so!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

The more important thing is... Is your dog okay? I hope so!!!

She should be fine. She’s so done with the cone of shame but has about another two weeks in it.  They did a corneal graft? I honestly didn’t even know that doggie ophthalmologists were a thing.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That’s a good one, but what happens when they do one that shows the size of the virus particle compared to the size of the particles a cloth or even a surgical mask is able to filter? Even if it were respiratory droplets and aerosols.
 

I guess there has been some talk about increased CO2 levels, but to most people it’s pretty obvious that we get oxygen through masks. Have you ever worked out in one, though? If you are breathing very hard, it’s subjectively much harder to breathe through a mask. I feel like there is an intermediate position between “masks are dangerous in all situations” and “there are no real or potential downsides to masks.” 
 

(I know you were only addressing conspiracy theories, so not responding only to your post). 

Subjectively more difficult, yes.  Enough to affect your oxygen level, not really.  This article is a doctor running a marathon distance while masked and monitoring his oxygen level, which stayed at 98% or above the whole time.  I get what your saying though, when I first upgraded from a simple 3 ply cloth mask to a KN95 I felt like it was harder to breath for the first several minutes. I think it was just more work than I was used to.  It felt more claustrophobic than anything. 

 

 

https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a33521706/face-mask-oxygen-levels-running-myth-coronavirus-doctor-fact-check/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That’s a good one, but what happens when they do one that shows the size of the virus particle compared to the size of the particles a cloth or even a surgical mask is able to filter? Even if it were respiratory droplets and aerosols.

It’s not a matter of just hole size relative to virus particle size since there is the random movement of tiny particles through multiple layers of criss crossing fibers to account for, in addition to the electrostatic charge attracting and capturing them. Tests can (and have) been done to show the appropriate sized particles can be largely captured. 
 

I forgot to quote your other part, but I find the type of mask has a big impact on comfort and breathability. I spent most of the first year wearing homemade cloth masks with an inner layer of polypropylene medical fabric with high filtration, and I felt like those gave me great protection, especially because I can tie them on tightly without gaps. I switched to KF94s at the beginning of this year though, and I find those far more comfortable. The KF94 is definitely what I would workout in. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HeartString said:

when I first upgraded from a simple 3 ply cloth mask to a KN95 I felt like it was harder to breath for the first several minutes. I think it was just more work than I was used to.  It felt more claustrophobic than anything. 

That’s so interesting, since I had the opposite experience going cloth to KF94. But as I said, I had a heavy duty filtration layer in the middle, so on edge to edge and my mask was always tight on tightly. Probably my filter fabric was just too much. Not that it reduced my ability to oxygenate well, it just wasn’t nearly as comfortable as what I wear now. I did test it with my pulse oximeter as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wheres Toto said:

One more example of the extreme lack of scientific understanding behind all these conspiracy theories.   

 

73237564_10222650594604152_5600280663949764443_o.jpg


I realize that this person is an anti vaxxer and that you will probably dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory”—I also realize that the meter used may not be accurate above 2000ppm.  Though I expect it is better than no meter.
 

In any case, 1000-2000 ppm is apparently “drowsiness” level and there are a lot of situations that even  “drowsiness” is not a good idea for.

While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...   And I do not know if children and adults would have same tolerances.  But even 6 or 7 hours per day 5 days per week may be rather a lot if it is for full time job or full time school. 
 

https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/10/del-bigtree-tests-air-quality-of-breathing-while-wearing-a-mask-on-a-child-proving-masks-are-toxic/

 

I do not think it “proves” anything.
 

But I think it is as worth considering as videos that showed how masks stopped or greatly decreased droplets from going out from someone as he  whispered, talked, shouted... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happi duck said:

My local store went from giant sign "face coverings required" to small sign that "encouraged" that unvaccinated wear masks to now the small sign is "face coverings required for unvaccinated people"...which I think is what was meant all along.  It took a minute to get things cleared up!

Kroger here left the big sign in place, but added a "face coverings optional for fully vsccinated people" here. If anything, I think masking has increased. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pen said:


I realize that this person is an anti vaxxer and that you will probably dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory”—I also realize that the meter used may not be accurate above 2000ppm.  Though I expect it is better than no meter.
 

In any case, 1000-2000 ppm is apparently “drowsiness” level and there are a lot of situations that even  “drowsiness” is not a good idea for.

While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...   And I do not know if children and adults would have same tolerances.  But even 6 or 7 hours per day 5 days per week may be rather a lot if it is for full time job or full time school. 
 

https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/10/del-bigtree-tests-air-quality-of-breathing-while-wearing-a-mask-on-a-child-proving-masks-are-toxic/

 

I do not think it “proves” anything.
 

But I think it is as worth considering as videos that showed how masks stopped or greatly decreased droplets from going out from someone as he  whispered, talked, shouted... 

 

A lot of the numbers you are tossing out are not correctly construed in that video.  This might help give you some context.

 

https://factcheck.afp.com/flawed-experiments-exaggerate-risk-co2-concentration-masks

-"Bigtree is the founder of an anti-vaccine organization, but does not mention any medical or scientific credentials on his website."

-"“They are using the wrong device and they are trying to compare the wrong numbers,” explained Hyo-Jick Choi, a researcher at the University of Alberta, who designed surgical masks and respirator filters that deactivate certain viral strains."

-"There is no doubt that wearing a face mask will increase carbon dioxide levels,” Choi conceded. However, the researcher warned that Bigtree’s video misleads by presenting the 5,000 ppm mark as a definite marker of toxicity.  Five thousand ppm is the highest recommended exposure for people working eight-hour days every day, particularly in closed spaces.

The experiments further mislead by truncating the chart, making 5,000 ppm look like the highest mark, when in fact the real chart shows that 40,000 ppm and above is the level considered dangerous, even for short periods of time."

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spryte said:

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

Same for my family member who was in hospital. Not the same as working out, but no impact on O2 at all. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Spryte said:

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

 

47 minutes ago, KSera said:

Same for my family member who was in hospital. Not the same as working out, but no impact on O2 at all. 

Right.  I wear an n95 for up to 10 hours at a time.  Some of that time is spent "working out", also known as CPR in full PPE.  I have worked shifts where I have worn the same n95 continuously for 10 hours (no breaks).  02 sat is fine.

It is true that the CO2 level inside the mask is well above the CO2 level in ambient air.  But so is the CO2 level in the air in your natural respiratory anatomical dead space at the end of each breath (mouth, nose, trachea, bronchi) which you also rebreathe with each breath.   The space inside of the mask basically acts as an extension of your own anatomical dead space.  Healthy people's bodies do not have any trouble to adapting to that extra deadspace.  The human respiratory system is very flexible and can cope with an extra 100cc or so of dead space just fine.  

Comparing N95 dead space CO2 concentrations with ambient workplace standards is a false comparison.  Ambient workplace standards apply to the ambient air - air that comprises the entire breath, for every breath taken while in the environment.  N95 dead space air, on the other hand , is a small volume, and the rest of the breath is comprised of normal ambient air that flows through the mask with each breath.

For fun:  Study of physiolgical effect of N95 during exercise.  Result:  1) "There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores", and predictably 2)"FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards" - which, as explained above, is not meaningful.

Also: a very nice, through review article, Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical activity in Health and Disease: "Although the body of literature directly evaluating this issue is evolving, for healthy individuals, the available data suggest that face masks, including N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth face masks, may increase dyspnea but have small and often difficult-to-detect effects on Wb, blood gases, and other physiological parameters during physical activity, even with heavy/maximal exercise" - subjects may feel subjectively short of breath, but their physiological markers change negligibly, if at all.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...