CDC mask announcement (a new thread)

[kokotg]

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.

Yeah, DH has worn a mask (or two!) all day every day for 9 months now. It's not exactly fun, but it's not a big deal. All of his students, too. I just asked if he's felt like he's had any health effects from wearing a mask all the time and he scoffed and said, "yeah, I haven't had a sore throat all year. That kind of health effect?" I won't say the other things he said about that sort of question, because they're not very polite. From my perspective, the most important health effect is how he hasn't gotten covid despite teaching in full classrooms all year and multiple times with covid positive students. 

[Pen]

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

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.

 

take a look at what I wrote - did I really “toss out” numbers wrongly or did I basically say the same thing as this in different words? 
 

What I wrote:

“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 yes, most school classes I am recently familiar with are “closed spaces”. So are a lot of work places. ) 

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

 

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."

 

 

strange. I thought that was basically same as I was trying to explain in my own added notes - that the device might not be accurate above  2000ppm  and about the 5000ppm being the level for a regular 8 hour workday as I understood it.   I have a feeling OSHA means typical 5 day week like most schools and jobs not actress “every day” as the write up you quoted  as in seven days per week - but maybe actual OSHA rules instead of either my explanation or the one you found would help! 
 

(40,000ppm is a level for passing out or dying isn’t it? 
 

I wasn’t taking about passing out or dying. I was talking about merely drowsiness being an effect at 1000-2000ppm and afaik what you quoted agrees with that and agrees that the meter would be accurate at that level, so if it’s getting above 5000 or 8000ppm reading I think at least drowsiness from 1000 ppm as per OSHA is a sensible conclusion on effect. 
 

And yes I will stand by what I said that I think drowsiness itself can be dangerous. Both as regards whatever might be happening to the drowsy brain and do we want drowsy airline pilots? That’s a pretty extreme example, but even drowsy butchers, drowsy electricians, drowsy car mechanics... may not be excellent. Drowsy doctors? 

 

If the meter is actually somewhat accurate above the 2000 mark, then it was showing at levels for worse problems than just drowsiness 
 

 

3 hours 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... 

 

 

[Pen]

18 minutes ago, Pen said:

take a look at what I wrote - did I really “toss out” numbers wrongly or did I basically say the same thing as this in different words? 
 

What I wrote:

“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 yes, most school classes I am recently familiar with are “closed spaces”. So are a lot of work places. ) 

strange. I thought that was basically same as I was trying to explain in my own added notes - that the device might not be accurate above  2000ppm  and about the 5000ppm being the level for a regular 8 hour workday as I understood it.   I have a feeling OSHA means typical 5 day week like most schools and jobs not actress “every day” as the write up you quoted  as in seven days per week - but maybe actual OSHA rules instead of either my explanation or the one you found would help! 
 

(40,000ppm is a level for losing consciousness  or dying isn’t it ? 
 

I wasn’t taking about losing consciousness or dying. I was talking about merely drowsiness being an effect at 1000-2000ppm and afaik what you quoted agrees with that and agrees that the meter would be accurate at that level, so if it’s getting above 5000 or 8000ppm reading I think at least drowsiness from 1000 ppm as per OSHA is a sensible conclusion on effect. 
 

And yes I will stand by what I said that I think drowsiness itself can be dangerous. Both as regards whatever might be happening to the drowsy brain and also do we want drowsy airline pilots? That’s a pretty extreme example, but even drowsy butchers (for their own safety), drowsy electricians, drowsy car mechanics... may not be excellent. Drowsy doctors?  I did also find articles on surgeons having lowered capacities, even though there is certainly debate on that. 

 

If the meter is actually somewhat accurate above the 2000 mark, then it was showing at levels for worse problems than just drowsiness 
 

 

ETA this was supposed to be part of former post reply to @HeartString it seems to have split into two posts with some repeating — 
 

I think you are trying to “debunk” by saying oh, but mask doesn’t reduce breathing to a state of OSHA loss of consciousness level. 
 

 

Yes. Fine.

 

But they do seem to cause much more CO2 build up than I had formerly been aware of . 
 

also a question for you - you accused me of “tossing out numbers” - did you really carefully compare my numbers and what you put or were you so eager to go find a “debunking” article that you yourself “tossed out” the debunking article without even bothering to carefully compare it to what I wrote?

Did you watch the video yourself? Or just go on a Google search for a “debunking” article to “Toss out”? 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen

[HeartString]

7 hours ago, Pen said:

ETA this was supposed to be part of former post reply to @HeartString it seems to have split into two posts with some repeating — 
 

I think you are trying to “debunk” by saying oh, but mask doesn’t reduce breathing to a state of OSHA loss of consciousness level. 
 

 

Yes. Fine.

 

But they do seem to cause much more CO2 build up than I had formerly been aware of . 
 

also a question for you - you accused me of “tossing out numbers” - did you really carefully compare my numbers and what you put or were you so eager to go find a “debunking” article that you yourself “tossed out” the debunking article without even bothering to carefully compare it to what I wrote?

Did you watch the video yourself? Or just go on a Google search for a “debunking” article to “Toss out”? 

I said your numbers needed context.  You should read this from Wathe, especially the bolded.   You're numbers aren't incorrect, they lack context and don't mean what you think they mean.  You know that saying "I know just enough to be dangerous", that's what your numbers are.  A tiny bit of truth, taken fully out of context, shaded a bit, and made to look like something else entirely. I know you didn't create them of course, I'm not blaming you.  You're just getting info from a shyster. 

This guy is a TV producer, not a doctor.  He has no idea what he is talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Bigtree

 

9 hours ago, wathe said:

 

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 May 27, 2021 by HeartString

[Not_a_Number]

9 hours ago, wathe said:

 

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.

Thank you. Excellent and very informative response.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

I said your numbers needed context.  You should read this from Wathe, especially the bolded.   You're numbers aren't incorrect, they lack context and don't mean what you think they mean.  You know that saying "I know just enough to be dangerous", that's what your numbers are.  A tiny bit of truth, taken fully out of context, shaded a bit, and made to look like something else entirely. I know you didn't create them of course, I'm not blaming you.  You're just getting info from a shyster. 

This guy is a TV producer, not a doctor.  He has no idea what he is talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Bigtree

 

 

@HeartString I already knew the gist of what was in the “ debunk”  article you quoted. If I did not express it properly so that you could understand I apologize for that. I started with my own caveat that Bigtree is an anti vaxxer. I know he is an antivaxxer.  

 

I do not look to Wikipedia as a good source for the type of use you are giving it right now. It is too easy to “discredit” people on it. And other people are shut out from trying to give contrary information. It’s sort of another version of looking to the Kardashians, or Snopes for solid information. 
 

and btw I already put that I myself have had to use masks (or respirators) extensively for a variety of reasons before CV19 . I had thought they were okay. I am no longer so sure of that. 
 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Pen

[Pen]

@HeartString 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/

 

[Pen]

@HeartString

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/

[Pen]

The previous two Pubmed links are ones I have read . Here are more from an endnotes reference list, most of which so far, I have not read, but may interest you.  They may go in either direction for or against masks - and I am not sure everyone of them deals with masks at all: 

 

1  T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

2  J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures.  Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

3  J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review.  MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf

4  L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial.  JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

5  J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574.

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

6  F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267.

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

7  J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al.  Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial.  Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

8  M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf

9  S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086

10 H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002.

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

11  C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

12  N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained

13  V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

14  C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo

15  M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601

16  C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo

17  N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci.  2018; 23(2). 61-69.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

18  T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736

19  N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

20  N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual?  J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

21  C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery.  JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/

22  L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

23  N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nature Research.  2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020).

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1

24  S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

25  S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients.  Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

26  S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

27  C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

28  W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920.  34-42.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34

29  M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

30  E Person, C Lemercier et al.  Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance.  Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/

31  B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes.  Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil’s sword – a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

32  P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al.  Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers – A controlled clinical study.  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/

33  T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease.  J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

34  F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods.  2018 Oct; 260:98-106.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/

35  A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season.  PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169507/

36  F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods.  2018 Oct; 260:98-106.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/

37  A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al.  Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers.  BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/

38  L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/

39  C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

40  A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126.

http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

41  D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation-inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965.

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962

42  A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity.  J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395.

https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3420330

Read

[Moonhawk]

Just adding to the masked-in-store post-change anecdata: DH went to the store today, this is the largest grocery store (aside from Walmart) for ~75 miles in a county with 44% vaccination rate. He said maybe 1 in 10 customers were wearing masks, and it was busy. He is vaccinated and wore his, and included himself for the 1 in 10. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Our county will not relax mask mandates until 70% of the eligible population has completed their vaccination series.  Very wise, I think. 

I started laughing in the grocery store the other day when an elderly man (at least 80) came in, saw me and said "Oh (F word).  I forgot my mask!"  He used his shirt to cover his mouth and nose while he quickly grabbed one thing. 

[Not_a_Number]

Well, we’re at a playground in a Boston suburb, and there are many more unmasked faces, including the kids 😕 . I dunno about this.

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, we’re at a playground in a Boston suburb, and there are many more unmasked faces, including the kids 😕 . I dunno about this.

I think the current science says it's very safe for kids to play outside in the sun without masks.

[Sk8ermaiden]

Honestly the science has said outdoor activities were pretty darn safe, almost from the beginning. 

[HeartString]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, we’re at a playground in a Boston suburb, and there are many more unmasked faces, including the kids 😕 . I dunno about this.

I just checked and Boston’s 7 day average is only 45 cases per day. New England also has the highest vaccination rates in the country, over 70% of Massachusetts is vaccinated. I can’t think of a safer place to play unmasked outdoors.  
 

The anxiety is real though! I get it.  You’ll get through it.  

Edited May 27, 2021 by HeartString

[Matryoshka]

2 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I just checked and Boston’s 7 day average is only 45 cases per day. New England also has the highest vaccination rates in the country, over 70% of Massachusetts is vaccinated. I can’t think of a safer place to play unmasked outdoors.  

The anxiety is real though! I get it.  You’ll get through it.  

I am freaking out a bit because my gym (that I finally started back at last week after being fully vaxxed) is relaxing their masking requirement (indoors!) starting next week.  Only for vaxxed people, technically, but they won't be checking. 😡

I am trying to decide what to do.  The vax rates here (suburbs of Boston), are, indeed, among the highest in the nation.  I'm considering keeping going and using my Happy Mask instead of the 'sports mask' I'd been using.

But even I'm not much at all worried about outdoors at this point.

[Not_a_Number]

35 minutes ago, Sk8ermaiden said:

Honestly the science has said outdoor activities were pretty darn safe, almost from the beginning. 

I already explained why I don’t think this is obviously settled science when it comes to little kids on playgrounds.

 

19 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I just checked and Boston’s 7 day average is only 45 cases per day. New England also has the highest vaccination rates in the country, over 70% of Massachusetts is vaccinated. I can’t think of a safer place to play unmasked outdoors.  
 

The anxiety is real though! I get it.  You’ll get through it.  

Yes. I know. That’s why we were at the playground in the first place and why we didn’t leave.

But I’d feel happier if people masked up for a bit longer.

[kokotg]

Maybe the CDC guessed right: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/health/vaccination-interest-cdc-mask-guidance/index.html

Quote

Data obtained exclusively by CNN shows that interest in getting vaccinated against Covid-19 increased right after Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, announced two weeks ago that vaccinated people could take off their masks.

They're basing it on traffic to vaccines.gov right after the updated guidance and saying that the decline in vaccine numbers that had been happening reversed somewhat after the announcement (but it's unclear whether that had more to do with the announcement or with eligibility expanding to 12-15 year olds).

Of course, in the meantime, my awesome governor says he's going to ban schools from mandating masks going forward (I wrote a headline, if any news people need it: "Georgia bans schools from following public health guidelines"), so things better keep moving in the right direction or fall could be a mess.

Edited May 27, 2021 by kokotg

[kbutton]

On 5/27/2021 at 2:42 PM, Jean in Newcastle said:

I started laughing in the grocery store the other day when an elderly man (at least 80) came in, saw me and said "Oh (F word).  I forgot my mask!"  He used his shirt to cover his mouth and nose while he quickly grabbed one thing. 

I have required the shirt trick a time or two, lol! 

[pinball]

Good news

[ktgrok]

On 5/26/2021 at 12:38 PM, 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? 
 

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. 
 

Interesting. 

 

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

 

 

The thing about surgeons having reduced alertness was shown to be related to length of surgery vs mask. 

And I'm having a REAL hard time figuring out how a mask both is too porous to trap the virus but not porous enough to allow CO2 to pass through. 

[Terabith]

I went to donate blood today, and masks were optional for vaccinated people.  I actually felt pretty okay about it, since I figure the people working at or donating blood are likely to actually be vaccinated.  I even took my mask off for the screening since my pulse rate is on the border of being accepted, and it's a bit higher when I mask.  I put it back on after they finished with the health screening part though.

[Jean in Newcastle]

https://apple.news/AxyIwJaUDR06P6pG8hT-J_g
 

“But adjustments for vaccinations show the rate among susceptible, unvaccinated people is 73 percent higher than the standard figures being publicized. With that adjustment, the national death rate is roughly the same as it was two months ago and is barely inching down. The adjusted hospitalization rate is as high as it was three months ago. The case rate is still declining after the adjustment.”

[prairiewindmomma]

Just weird anecdota....

1. We run AirNow air quality meters in the house 24/7. We started during the wildfires last year and have just left them plugged in. The lowest the CO2 reading gets is about 500ppm, and that’s with windows open with cross-flow and HEPA filters running. It regularly climbs above 1200 and stays sustained there if people are in a room and the door is closed. No sleepiness, but there is a sense of stuffiness once it climbs above 1400ppm.

2. Our Target has left masking mandates in place after all. I had to step in to pick up something this past weekend. I am taking Youngest soon. We will double mask per our usual protocol (paper covered by cloth). We have done 02 meter testing with that setup as we are both asthmatic and sat rates stay 98-99. 
 

 

[Pen]

4 hours ago, ktgrok said:

The thing about surgeons having reduced alertness was shown to be related to length of surgery vs mask. 

And I'm having a REAL hard time figuring out how a mask both is too porous to trap the virus but not porous enough to allow CO2 to pass through. 

you don’t need to figure that out - it is a 
false analogy

 

I do not at all believe, not by any means, that all (or even most of) the CO2 a person breathes out gets trapped by mask— and that would be the actual analogy you should be comparing to if you want to make this sort of comparison.    Lots and lots of CO2 goes out. Lots and lots of aerosol virus goes out.  Out from the person, out from the mask if wearing mask. Some may be trapped (temporarily higher amount that is - not permanently, completely and absolutely trapped the way you seem to be thinking about it) near by the breather’s face, much like CO2 concentrations tend to be higher indoors than out. The higher CO2 trapped near to person’s face can be health issue. That most goes on out and away into room  is not disputed afaik.   But in case of viral aerosols the most going out and away into room is a potential infectivity problem for others.  Eta: But only an issue for others if the person is actually sick and putting out dangerous transmissible virus (which is not usually the situation, more Below)

 

early on I was a mask adopter - I may have been wrong then or not, hard to say. I/we didn’t know what was going on, how dangerous the virus was, nor clear on spread.  I think when it was thought that it was extremely contagious, and extremely deadly, and spread by droplets, and no other ways of dealing with it had been figured out at all that perhaps masks made some sense ... and when it seemed like “they may not help, but can’t hurt.”   That’s no longer the situation. We now have a “they may not help, and may hurt” situation, more is known, including that there is aerosol spread. And that Asymptomatic spread is probably extremely rare.
 

So requiring mask wearing by lots of probably well people who probably won’t spread CV19  because they don’t have CV19 in first place, does not make sense when balanced with various risks of masks- including loss of liberty, perhaps some loss of emotional connection, as well as physical issues. 

While imo with low likelihood of Asymptomatic spread and virus being spread by aerosol, everyone wearing a mask makes  little sense, nonetheless,  people who want to be personally more protected might be able to do that at least to some degree with respirator grade masks with hydrostatic qualities that might do better at attracting and holding virus.  My current opinion is that saving the more special hydrostatic respirators like that for those who need them, and ending enforced masks no matter their qualities for all seems far more sensible . 

 

https://fee.org/articles/new-study-casts-more-doubt-on-effectiveness-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/

 

current guess - no study for this: 

If you still can’t wrap your head around idea of mask holding in CO2 try an analogy to this: I think that the CO2 build up might be rather like breathing into a paper bag. It isn’t that CO2 can’t get out of the paper bag, doesn’t escape around edges or through the bag fibers, but it hangs out near the breather where it can be breathed back in. (that is done for example if someone needs more CO2 after hyperventilating) 

 My guess is that if someone were actually sick with contagious virus that may  also be true for short term mask use like going quick in and out from a store, some of the virus might hang for awhile in the near to the nose air of the mask. But if people are in an area for an extended time (school, work, a longer time in a store ...) aerosols are going to be going out of the mask  more and more to where it’s not much if any help at all with regard to infection .     So also reversed opposite direction, if someone is high risk, going very briefly into places as necessary with a high quality mask with maybe an air pocket of good clean nonvirus laden air up by face, it might be a help. 
 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Pen
Clarity

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

you don’t need to figure that out - it is a 
false analogy

 

I do not at all believe, not by any means, that all (or even most of) the CO2 a person breathes out gets trapped by mask— and that would be the actual analogy you should be comparing to if you want to make this sort of comparison.    Lots and lots of CO2 goes out. Lots and lots of aerosol virus goes out.  Out from the person, out from the mask if wearing mask. Some may be trapped (temporarily higher amount that is - not permanently, completely and absolutely trapped the way you seem to be thinking about it) near by the breather’s face, much like CO2 concentrations tend to be higher indoors than out. The higher CO2 trapped near to person’s face can be health issue. That most goes on out and away into room  is not disputed afaik.   But in case of viral aerosols the most going out and away into room is a potential infectivity problem for others.  Eta: But only an issue for others if the person is actually sick and putting out dangerous transmissible virus (which is not usually the situation, more Below)

 

early on I was a mask adopter - I may have been wrong then or not, hard to say. I/we didn’t know what was going on, how dangerous the virus was, nor clear on spread.  I think when it was thought that it was extremely contagious, and extremely deadly, and spread by droplets, and no other ways of dealing with it had been figured out at all that perhaps masks made some sense ... and when it seemed like “they may not help, but can’t hurt.”   That’s no longer the situation. We now have a “they may not help, and may hurt” situation, more is known, including that there is aerosol spread. And that Asymptomatic spread is probably extremely rare.
 

So requiring mask wearing by lots of probably well people who probably won’t spread CV19  because they don’t have CV19 in first place, does not make sense when balanced with various risks of masks- including loss of liberty, perhaps some loss of emotional connection, as well as physical issues. 

While imo with low likelihood of Asymptomatic spread and virus being spread by aerosol, everyone wearing a mask makes  little sense, nonetheless,  people who want to be personally more protected might be able to do that at least to some degree with respirator grade masks with hydrostatic qualities that might do better at attracting and holding virus.  My current opinion is that saving the more special hydrostatic respirators like that for those who need them, and ending enforced masks no matter their qualities for all seems far more sensible . 

 

https://fee.org/articles/new-study-casts-more-doubt-on-effectiveness-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/

 

current guess - no study for this: 

If you still can’t wrap your head around idea of mask holding in CO2 try an analogy to this: I think that the CO2 build up might be rather like breathing into a paper bag. It isn’t that CO2 can’t get out of the paper bag, doesn’t escape around edges or through the bag fibers, but it hangs out near the breather where it can be breathed back in. (that is done for example if someone needs more CO2 after hyperventilating) 

 My guess is that if someone were actually sick with contagious virus that may  also be true for short term mask use like going quick in and out from a store, some of the virus might hang for awhile in the near to the nose air of the mask. But if people are in an area for an extended time (school, work, a longer time in a store ...) aerosols are going to be going out of the mask  more and more to where it’s not much if any help at all with regard to infection .     So also reversed opposite direction, if someone is high risk, going very briefly into places as necessary with a high quality mask with maybe an air pocket of good clean nonvirus laden air up by face, it might be a help. 
 

 

1. you are neglecting that the virus is WAY bigger than a  molecule of CO2, AND that it is often in droplets which are WAY WAY WAY bigger. 

2. Asymptomatic spread is rare, but what I and others are worried about is PREsymptomatic spread as well as spread by fully symptomatic people who think they have "a cold" or "it is just allergies" or "a sinus infection". I know people who tested positive later in each of those scenarios. 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by ktgrok

[Pen]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

1. you are neglecting that the virus is WAY bigger than a  molecule of CO2, AND that it is often in droplets which are WAY WAY WAY bigger. 

2. Asymptomatic spread is rare, but what I and others are worried about is PREsymptomatic spread as well as spread by fully symptomatic people who think they have "a cold" or "it is just allergies" or "a sinus infection". I know people who tested positive later in each of those scenarios. 

 

No, I am not “neglecting “ those things. 
 

I think the seeming sick situation is different and needs attention as to how to deal with it. 

Droplets might be stopped — but again the balancing of risks versus benefits is a problem.

 

Good quality mask and goggles etc can also be worn by those of us especially concerned without unwarranted restriction on everyone.

 

there were meme like graphics of someone male peeing toward someone else with and without pants on showing that pants (like a mask) might reduce pee  getting on someone else

 

the problem is that it may be more like being in a swimming pool and wearing a bathing suit, or even two or three layers of bathing suits — but in a swimming pool bathing suits don’t actually keep the pee from dispersing even though there’s a droplets aspect

 

again, a really good Respirator with electrostatic charge may do better

 

But evidence is at best mixed. 
 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Pen

[Pen]

52 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

1. you are neglecting that the virus is WAY bigger than a  molecule of CO2, AND that it is often in droplets which are WAY WAY WAY bigger. 

2. Asymptomatic spread is rare, but what I and others are worried about is PREsymptomatic spread as well as spread by fully symptomatic people who think they have "a cold" or "it is just allergies" or "a sinus infection". I know people who tested positive later in each of those scenarios. 

 

by the way we are legally supposed to presume innoncence not guilt - not handcuff people because they might commit a crime

 

For someone with no symptoms imo we need to presume innocence (not sick) as well for similar reasons at this point.   Not lock people down or lock people up or force a mask because of a very small comparative chance that a tiny number in large general

population might be presymptomatically contagious.

think about this - there’s apparently so little virus available in outer nasal area that  tests had to be done by ramming a swab way up the nose passage to get enough stuff to be able to get a positive test... how infectious are people with insufficient testable virus in outer nasal passage going to be typically? 

[Frances]

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

by the way we are legally supposed to presume innoncence not guilt - not handcuff people because they might commit a crime

 

For someone with no symptoms imo we need to presume innocence (not sick) as well for similar reasons at this point.   Not lock people down or lock people up or force a mask because of a very small comparative chance that a tiny number in large general

population might be presymptomatically contagious.

think about this - there’s apparently so little virus available in outer nasal area that  tests had to be done by ramming a swab way up the nose passage to get enough stuff to be able to get a positive test... how infectious are people with insufficient testable virus in outer nasal passage going to be typically? 

Where in the US are people being locked down or locked up? If you don’t want to wear a mask, then avoid places that require them.

[TravelingChris]

So I went to Publix for the first time since the CDC masking  for vaccinated was lifted.  I had read in multiple places that Publix had followed CDC guidelines. There is no mask mandate in my state and it had been lifted before the CDC.  So dh and I didn't bring our masks.  Most of the store workers were masked but not all.  I would say about 50% of people were wearing masks.  A few looked like they actually probably should be- very frail, elderly people.  But other than that, there was no difference in who was wearing masks or not.  

My county has almost no cases of COVID now and we are a populated area.   Before we had gone to Publix, we were at my weekly wound doctor appointment.  Dh had taken me and was kinda grumpy as to why  we still have to wear masks there considering presumably the staff has been vaccinated and we have been too.  I told him that considering those of us who end up needing wound care appointments for months tend to be people with lower immune responses and some may be organ transplant people, I am find for protecting others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pen]

@ktgrok you probably don’t want to consider this, but let’s say, hypothetically, in the event it does turn out that people who chose to get the jabs are actually putting out something potentially  harmful to others (I realize you don’t believe it could be so, but just as a hypothetical) , how do you want the people who chose to get the jabs to be treated?  Locked down?  Locked out of businesses, colleges, schools, jobs, air flights? etc? Permanent mask requirement?  

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Pen said:

you don’t need to figure that out - it is a 
false analogy

 

I do not at all believe, not by any means, that all (or even most of) the CO2 a person breathes out gets trapped by mask— and that would be the actual analogy you should be comparing to if you want to make this sort of comparison.    Lots and lots of CO2 goes out. Lots and lots of aerosol virus goes out.  Out from the person, out from the mask if wearing mask. Some may be trapped (temporarily higher amount that is - not permanently, completely and absolutely trapped the way you seem to be thinking about it) near by the breather’s face, much like CO2 concentrations tend to be higher indoors than out. The higher CO2 trapped near to person’s face can be health issue. That most goes on out and away into room  is not disputed afaik.   But in case of viral aerosols the most going out and away into room is a potential infectivity problem for others.  Eta: But only an issue for others if the person is actually sick and putting out dangerous transmissible virus (which is not usually the situation, more Below)

 

early on I was a mask adopter - I may have been wrong then or not, hard to say. I/we didn’t know what was going on, how dangerous the virus was, nor clear on spread.  I think when it was thought that it was extremely contagious, and extremely deadly, and spread by droplets, and no other ways of dealing with it had been figured out at all that perhaps masks made some sense ... and when it seemed like “they may not help, but can’t hurt.”   That’s no longer the situation. We now have a “they may not help, and may hurt” situation, more is known, including that there is aerosol spread. And that Asymptomatic spread is probably extremely rare.
 

So requiring mask wearing by lots of probably well people who probably won’t spread CV19  because they don’t have CV19 in first place, does not make sense when balanced with various risks of masks- including loss of liberty, perhaps some loss of emotional connection, as well as physical issues. 

While imo with low likelihood of Asymptomatic spread and virus being spread by aerosol, everyone wearing a mask makes  little sense, nonetheless,  people who want to be personally more protected might be able to do that at least to some degree with respirator grade masks with hydrostatic qualities that might do better at attracting and holding virus.  My current opinion is that saving the more special hydrostatic respirators like that for those who need them, and ending enforced masks no matter their qualities for all seems far more sensible . 

 

https://fee.org/articles/new-study-casts-more-doubt-on-effectiveness-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/

 

current guess - no study for this: 

If you still can’t wrap your head around idea of mask holding in CO2 try an analogy to this: I think that the CO2 build up might be rather like breathing into a paper bag. It isn’t that CO2 can’t get out of the paper bag, doesn’t escape around edges or through the bag fibers, but it hangs out near the breather where it can be breathed back in. (that is done for example if someone needs more CO2 after hyperventilating) 

 My guess is that if someone were actually sick with contagious virus that may  also be true for short term mask use like going quick in and out from a store, some of the virus might hang for awhile in the near to the nose air of the mask. But if people are in an area for an extended time (school, work, a longer time in a store ...) aerosols are going to be going out of the mask  more and more to where it’s not much if any help at all with regard to infection .     So also reversed opposite direction, if someone is high risk, going very briefly into places as necessary with a high quality mask with maybe an air pocket of good clean nonvirus laden air up by face, it might be a help. 
 

 

There is so much false here that it’s hard to know where to start, but I suppose I won’t bother since Pen won’t see it anyway and it wouldn’t make a difference if she did. I do wish she had responded to @wathe’s very excellent explanation of why the whole trapped CO2 fear holds no water. I do just have to say the idea near the end that a pocket of air inside someone’s mask is going to last them for more than the first fraction of the first breath they take while wearing the mask is particularly perplexing.

[HeartString]

9 hours ago, Pen said:

@ktgrok you probably don’t want to consider this, but let’s say, hypothetically, in the event it does turn out that people who chose to get the jabs are actually putting out something potentially  harmful to others (I realize you don’t believe it could be so, but just as a hypothetical) , how do you want the people who chose to get the jabs to be treated?  Locked down?  Locked out of businesses, colleges, schools, jobs, air flights? etc? Permanent mask requirement?  

If the vaccines somehow turn out to make vaccinated people dangerous to *others* I think we would have to accept that at this point the majority of the population has gotten the vaccine and permanently restricting the majority of the population wouldn’t make sense. Especially once you consider that the vaccinated population would presumably be immune from damaging each other.  Even in this hypothetical it stretches the imagination  to think a vaccinated person would be in danger from the shedding vaccine of other vaccinated individuals.  

The unvaccinated would then either need to follow the adage of “if you can’t beat em, join em” and get vaccinated to protect themselves from the vaccine shedding, if not the virus itself.  Or they would just have to accept the risks and  protect themselves as best as they can or create their own enclaves where they figure out how to avoid contact with the vaccinated.  
 

The idea of setting up a state where the unvaccinated minority would restrict and isolate the vaccinated majority is…well, something.   
 

Interesting thought experiment.  

[Wheres Toto]

9 hours ago, KSera said:

There is so much false here that it’s hard to know where to start, but I suppose I won’t bother since Pen won’t see it anyway and it wouldn’t make a difference if she did. I do wish she had responded to @wathe’s very excellent explanation of why the whole trapped CO2 fear holds no water. I do just have to say the idea near the end that a pocket of air inside someone’s mask is going to last them for more than the first fraction of the first breath they take while wearing the mask is particularly perplexing.

At this point this has all been explained over and over and over and over again.  Anyone still clinging to these "concerns" that are based on nothing scientific or likely in any way is just choosing to be willfully ignorant.   Nothing anyone says is going to change their minds. 

I find the idea that any random speculation is to be treated as a valid possibility very disturbing.   It's like deciding to build an underground city because the moon is going to get hit by an asteroid and fall into the earth.   It could happen.  Prove to me that it's not likely.  You can't so therefore we should get everybody ready for this.  

[Dmmetler]

I've now seen all my summer students in studio. Last Spring, masks were mandated. This summer, they are not, but I let parents know that since they are still recommended for unvaccinated/cannot be vaccinated individual that I will be continuing to mask in lessons with students too young to be fully vaccinated for now, and will reevaluate for fall. 

 

So far 100% of kids AND parents have worn masks. And that includes parents who were turning cartwheels about being able to get vaccinated back when getting an appointment felt like snagging a prized concert tickets or something. Two have thanked me for being consistent, because they want their kids to continue to mask until the vaccine is available or numbers have dropped more, and having different rules in different situations is proving much harder than it was when they were required everywhere and the person without one was the person not following the rules. 

 

I honestly wouldn't have been surprised had it gone the other way, and the only mask being worn was mine. 

 

I am putting winds classes back on the schedule for fall, but for private lessons or pods of family or close friends only, since those won't be masked. 

[Catwoman]

11 hours ago, Pen said:

@ktgrok you probably don’t want to consider this, but let’s say, hypothetically, in the event it does turn out that people who chose to get the jabs are actually putting out something potentially  harmful to others (I realize you don’t believe it could be so, but just as a hypothetical) , how do you want the people who chose to get the jabs to be treated?  Locked down?  Locked out of businesses, colleges, schools, jobs, air flights? etc? Permanent mask requirement?  

I’m wondering how the people who worry about that are thinking the vaccinated people are actually “putting out something potentially harmful.”

I have seen that theory posted here and there, but there never seems to be an explanation of how a person could get a vaccination and then — as an example — somehow be able to make other women infertile.

It makes no sense to me, and I can’t figure out how anyone could believe this, as this isn’t something that happens with vaccines. 

You always seem to read up on all of this stuff, so I’m hoping you can explain the theory behind it. I am genuinely baffled, and I’m sure I’m not the only one here who feels that way. 

[Catwoman]

12 hours ago, Pen said:

Good quality mask and goggles etc can also be worn by those of us especially concerned without unwarranted restriction on everyone.

This is what my family is doing. We can’t control the behaviors of others, so we have no other option. 

My concern is that unvaccinated people who refuse to mask may be contributing to the emergence of new Covid variants, but I guess time will tell as to whether or not that is the case. I hope to be proven wrong!

[Pen]

58 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

This is what my family is doing. We can’t control the behaviors of others, so we have no other option. 

My concern is that unvaccinated people who refuse to mask may be contributing to the emergence of new Covid variants, but I guess time will tell as to whether or not that is the case. I hope to be proven wrong!

vaccinated people may be contributing just as much or more  -  and worse may contribute to new variants increasing in “badness” (transmission ease, virulence, fatality etc various undesirable from human POV characteristics) instead of gradually getting less troublesome and settling in as endemic 

 

I know that makes no sense to you but if you are interested, try reading about Marek (Marik?) chickens and “leaky vaccines”. 

[Matryoshka]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

vaccinated people may be contributing just as much or more  -  and worse may contribute to new variants increasing in “badness” (transmission ease, virulence, fatality etc various undesirable from human POV characteristics) instead of gradually getting less troublesome and settling in as endemic 

I know that makes no sense to you but if you are interested, try reading about Marek (Marik?) chickens and “leaky vaccines”. 

Just like happened with the Polio and Smallpox vaccines - those diseases have become much more sneaky and prevalent since the vaccines for them came out, and after global mass vaccination campaigns now are even a bigger problem than before.   Can people not learn from history?  

Oh, wait...

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

I’m wondering how the people who worry about that are thinking the vaccinated people are actually “putting out something potentially harmful.”

I have seen that theory posted here and there, but there never seems to be an explanation of how a person could get a vaccination and then — as an example — somehow be able to make other women infertile.

It makes no sense to me, and I can’t figure out how anyone could believe this, as this isn’t something that happens with vaccines. 

You always seem to read up on all of this stuff, so I’m hoping you can explain the theory behind it. I am genuinely baffled, and I’m sure I’m not the only one here who feels that way. 

this isn’t a normal “vaccine” - I’ll try to return to explain more or link more later

 

you could start with “leaky vaccines” and understanding about the Chickens — which may help as foundational concepts that are applicable to this area to some degree . (Those mostly describe more traditional vaccines.) 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

I’m wondering how the people who worry about that are thinking the vaccinated people are actually “putting out something potentially harmful.”

I have seen that theory posted here and there, but there never seems to be an explanation of how a person could get a vaccination and then — as an example — somehow be able to make other women infertile.

It would be like me worrying I’m going to catch my dd’s thyroid medication from her if I get to close. 

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, Pen said:

No, I am not “neglecting “ those things. 
 

I think the seeming sick situation is different and needs attention as to how to deal with it. 

Droplets might be stopped — but again the balancing of risks versus benefits is a problem.

 

The benefit of potentially not killing someone vs the con of....non hazardous slightly increased CO2? That's not clear cut?

And since I can't trust people to know if they are sick, having every unvaccinated person wear a mask in public is the only way to keep those who have symptoms masked. That's not because they are evil, but they may feel they just "have a headache from the weather" or "are allergic to pollen".

 

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

I’m wondering how the people who worry about that are thinking the vaccinated people are actually “putting out something potentially harmful.”

I have seen that theory posted here and there, but there never seems to be an explanation of how a person could get a vaccination and then — as an example — somehow be able to make other women infertile.

It makes no sense to me, and I can’t figure out how anyone could believe this, as this isn’t something that happens with vaccines. 

You always seem to read up on all of this stuff, so I’m hoping you can explain the theory behind it. I am genuinely baffled, and I’m sure I’m not the only one here who feels that way. 

I am trying to deal with people kindly but consider the snark and worse from some people here uncalled for. 

 

if you genuinely want me to reply with a thoughtful answer when I am able to do so, try to deal with snark and nastiness reduction amongst other posters here in the meantime. 
 

cancel culture seems to be winning here 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Guys. Guuuuuuuys. Have some sense here. If Not_a_Number is telling you to stop debating, there must be a dire need to stop debating. 

[Catwoman]

43 minutes ago, Pen said:

this isn’t a normal “vaccine” - I’ll try to return to explain more or link more later

 

you could start with “leaky vaccines” and understanding about the Chickens — which may help as foundational concepts that are applicable to this area to some degree . (Those mostly describe more traditional vaccines.) 

 

37 minutes ago, Pen said:

I am trying to deal with people kindly but consider the snark and worse from some people here uncalled for. 

 

if you genuinely want me to reply with a thoughtful answer when I am able to do so, try to deal with snark and nastiness reduction amongst other posters here in the meantime. 
 

cancel culture seems to be winning here 

 

We may not agree on several things, Pen, but I really appreciate your honest and courteous replies to all of my questions, and I admire you for somehow always managing not to reply to snark with more snark. (And I know I have sometimes been one of the snarky ones. 😞 )

 

[Bootsie]

17 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

https://apple.news/AxyIwJaUDR06P6pG8hT-J_g
 

“But adjustments for vaccinations show the rate among susceptible, unvaccinated people is 73 percent higher than the standard figures being publicized. With that adjustment, the national death rate is roughly the same as it was two months ago and is barely inching down. The adjusted hospitalization rate is as high as it was three months ago. The case rate is still declining after the adjustment.”

So, what is the point of this information?  

From a public health standpoint, if 1% of the entire population has a virus, there is a 1 in 100 chance that someone I meet on the street has the virus.  If half of the population is vaccinated, and 1% of the remaining portion of the population has the virus, then there is a 1 in 200 chance that someone I randomly meet on the street has the virus.  If the nature of the disease is that 20% of those who get the disease are hospitalized, then the adjusted rate of hospitalization would remain the same. 

[*Jessica*]

Since Pen first mentioned leaky vaccines I’ve read a bit about them and I don’t see how this is any cause for concern with the coronavirus vaccines available.  
 

“Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination.” Source

 

“Data from multiple studies in different countries suggest that people vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine who develop COVID-19 have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(50-54) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission(55).” Source

Current vaccines (particularly the mRNA vaccines that Pen seems to think are potentially problematic) are limiting transmissibility.  People who are vaccinated but get infected are less likely to pass the virus on.  Unvaccinated people are much more likely to become infected and much more likely to infect someone else, keeping the chain going with many more opportunities for mutations that are more dangerous.  Leaky vaccine worries really don’t make sense here.   The masses of unvaccinated are putting us at risk of potential mutations, not the very tiny few who are vaccinated and still able to infect others.  
 

And if somehow, hypothetically, all of the scientific community manages to be wrong about this and Pen is right, permanent mask requirements would likely be far less of a big deal to those of us willing to protect our communities by vaccinating than it would to those who keep screaming about their rights and refusing to vaccinate or mask.  Stop trying to make the vaccinated look like the selfish fools here; it’s quite clear to the vast majority of the world who are the selfish ones.  (Not speaking of those who cannot be vaccinated, of course.) 

[Dmmetler]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

It would be like me worrying I’m going to catch my dd’s thyroid medication from her if I get to close. 

In fairness, when we had a cat who was on transdermal  meds, we were told to wear gloves to apply them, particularly for the thyroid ones, and to let them soak in before handling the cat without gloves (which was a matter of 15 minutes. Because you could absorb enough for the human to be affected (and for the thyroid meds, it simply doesn't take much). You also have to isolate individuals going through radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid concerns because others, particularly pre-adolescent kids and pregnant individuals can be affected. And live vaccines can be shed for a short time after vaccination. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Dmmetler said:

In fairness, when we had a cat who was on transdermal  meds, we were told to wear gloves to apply them, particularly for the thyroid ones, and to let them soak in before handling the cat without gloves (which was a matter of 15 minutes. Because you could absorb enough for the human to be affected (and for the thyroid meds, it simply doesn't take much). You also have to isolate individuals going through radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid concerns because others, particularly pre-adolescent kids and pregnant individuals can be affected. And live vaccines can be shed for a short time after vaccination. 

Right, but in those, we have some mechanism by which exposure could do something. You may as well say that you can catch my cold sores by standing next time when I don't have a cold sore -- the virus is somewhere inside my body, right? 

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

In fairness, when we had a cat who was on transdermal  meds, we were told to wear gloves to apply them, particularly for the thyroid ones, and to let them soak in before handling the cat without gloves (which was a matter of 15 minutes. Because you could absorb enough for the human to be affected (and for the thyroid meds, it simply doesn't take much). You also have to isolate individuals going through radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid concerns because others, particularly pre-adolescent kids and pregnant individuals can be affected. And live vaccines can be shed for a short time after vaccination. 

Well of course, but I meant the thyroid pill my daughter takes each morning. It makes sense that you could absorb transdermal medication through your skin; that's how it works. Same with the radioactive iodine therapy and live vaccines. All of those have a very clear mechanism. We're not talking about any of that, though. This is a vaccine with no virus in it at all that is injected. A better analogy might have been for me to say it doesn't make sense to worry that you are going to get too much insulin by standing close to someone who takes insulin injections each day.

I worry that countering with examples that aren't at all equivalent will further bolster people putting forth dangerous conspiracy theories. It seems they ignore all evidence to the contrary of their conspiracy theories, but take and run with anything that remotely seems to support it (even when it doesn't). I expect to see that now in 3...2...1....