Jump to content

Menu

CDC mask announcement (a new thread)


Recommended Posts

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. 
 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by Pen
Clarity
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by ktgrok
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by Pen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?  

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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”. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.) 

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

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. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 😞 )

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.) 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, *Jessica* said:

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.) 

I did not see Pen (or anyone else) tying to make the vaccinated look like selfish fools.  As someone who IS vaccinated, I would not refer to those who are choosing not to vaccinate at this point as selfish.  Some of the most thoughtful, well-informed people I know are choosing not to vaccinate at this point; I respect the time, thought, and research they have put into making what for many is a tough decision.  I do not necessarily draw the same conclusions or weight the issues the same way they do; but I learn a lot more by entering into a conversation with them than I do by simply talking to people who think vaccinating at this point is a simple question with only one potential answer and that anyone who doesn't agree with that answer is selfish.  I have also found that few people who are not vaccinated find being called selfish a motivating factor for getting vaccinated; instead I find that they are eager for an intellectual discussion as the gather newly available information and as the wrestle with the decision are more likely to respond to having their concerns responded to with respect. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I have also found that few people who are not vaccinated find being called selfish a motivating factor for getting vaccinated; instead I find that they are eager for an intellectual discussion as the gather newly available information and as the wrestle with the decision are more likely to respond to having their concerns responded to with respect. 

I agree that's not a productive tactic, and that there are many people who are uncertain and looking for info and who are able to have reasonable discussions about it. I know plenty of unvaccinated people in that category. I do find that different from people who repeatedly try to advance false and/or disproven theories to discourage vaccination. That's a different category. And even moreso when they are part of  putting forth anti-semitic tropes along with their anti-vax sentiment. I was frankly pretty surprised how lightly that has been taken here on the board. I found that extremely abhorrent, and a that point, reasonable discussion seemed to have long left the building.

If anyone has been fortunate enough to have not seen all the Covid-related anti-semitism, here's a recent Op-Ed from Medpage Today: COVID-19 Has Unleashed Vile Antisemitism Some of this was seen on this board in the vaccine thread.

Edited by KSera
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

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. 

The point as I understand it, is that if you isolate out the unvaccinated population, the rates of infection are just as high as it was in the winter.  I am glad to be part of the vaccinated population for this very reason.  But many unvaccinated people see the lower numbers which include the vaccinated population and think that they are safe when they really aren't.  (This is, as always  when discussing a contagious virus, is dependent on location.) 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, KSera said:

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....

The thing is, there are mechanisms by which medications can affect others nearby. Including some vaccines. This is not the case with the COVID vaccine, which is neither radioactive nor live, but dismissing it off hand with "vaccines don't work that way" isn't fair. Some can. Just not the mRNA ones or attenuated virus ones, which are the only currently approved in the US. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

The point as I understand it, is that if you isolate out the unvaccinated population, the rates of infection are just as high as it was in the winter.  I am glad to be part of the vaccinated population for this very reason.  But many unvaccinated people see the lower numbers which include the vaccinated population and think that they are safe when they really aren't.  (This is, as always  when discussing a contagious virus, is dependent on location.) 

I don't know that this can be concluded. It is difficult to read the exact numbers from the Washington Post, but it looks as if the adjusted rate in the US is about 15 per 100,000 (or .015%)--It was closer to 80 per 100,000 at the peak of the pandemic--so the risk was about 5 times higher earlier this year than before. 

Someone may be willing to accept a 0.015% risk--not that they are somehow being fooled into thinking it is safe.  Safe is a relative term.  The rate at which one person feels safe is not the rate at which another person feels safe.  

The hospitalization rate is even more difficult to draw conclusions from.  From what I can gather, these numbers are based on the number hospitalized, not the rate of new hospitalization.  So someone who contracted COVID in February (before vaccine was widely available) was hospitalized in March, and is unfortunately still hospitalized would be in those statistics.  There is a time delay between when vaccination rates will fully show up in hospitalization rate statistics, especially when it is the number hospitalized that is being used and not the number of new hospitalization rates.  

A state such as Washington can be cherry-picked to show that the rate of COVID among the unvaccinated today appears to be about the same as it was among the total population in Washington at the end of January--but that was because the rate in Washington in January was only about 1/4 of the rate at the national level.  Washington did not have a large wave then; in an area in which the risk was relatively low in January it is going to be statistically difficult for the rate among unvaccinated to become much lower than that.   In fact, the hospitalization rate in Washington for the entire population (not just unvaccinated adjusted numbers) is the same as it was in January--I don't think we would want to conclude that means that the vaccination is not helping.  So, these numbers must be put into context.  We can't think of the peak in January in the US and then talk about Washington numbers now compared to a strong January peak. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

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? 

Again, though, I think it's important to acknowledge that the idea that someone can be affected by someone else's medical treatment is not far fetched, and address WHY the COVID vaccine cannot work that way. 

 

The fact is, the analogy used was thyroid meds. There are at least two forms of thyroid treatment that I know of that can affect others, and others that cannot. There are, similarly, some vaccines that can affect others. Just not the ones currently approved for COVID in the USA. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Again, though, I think it's important to acknowledge that the idea that someone can be affected by someone else's medical treatment is not far fetched, and address WHY the COVID vaccine cannot work that way. 

The fact is, the analogy used was thyroid meds. There are at least two forms of thyroid treatment that I know of that can affect others, and others that cannot. There are, similarly, some vaccines that can affect others. Just not the ones currently approved for COVID in the USA. 

That sounds like a fine approach if you assume people are arguing this rationally and in good faith. That's not my current take, though. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

The thing is, there are mechanisms by which medications can affect others nearby. Including some vaccines. This is not the case with the COVID vaccine, which is neither radioactive nor live, but dismissing it off hand with "vaccines don't work that way" isn't fair. Some can. Just not the mRNA ones or attenuated virus ones, which are the only currently approved in the US. 

I think people were saying “vaccines don’t work that way,” as a response to the types of ideas that suggest that if an unvaccinated person is merely in a room with vaccinated people — or even walks past them in a store or something — their fertility will be affected or they will suffer a miscarriage, or they will get some hideous new mystery disease that is not Covid, but is somehow much worse.

And vaccines truly don’t work that way. They just don’t.

 

Edited by Catwoman
Typos!
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

The thing is, there are mechanisms by which medications can affect others nearby. Including some vaccines. This is not the case with the COVID vaccine, which is neither radioactive nor live, but dismissing it off hand with "vaccines don't work that way" isn't fair. Some can. Just not the mRNA ones or attenuated virus ones, which are the only currently approved in the US. 

 

22 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

The fact is, the analogy used was thyroid meds. There are at least two forms of thyroid treatment that I know of that can affect others, and others that cannot. There are, similarly, some vaccines that can affect others. Just not the ones currently approved for COVID in the USA. 

Again, I apparently made a mistake in using the thyroid example, as I pulled it out of the air quickly, thinking of my kid who takes a pill. I will endeavor to more carefully choose my examples in the future, looking for any related caveats someone might think of. In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure how it's helpful to muddy things by coming up with things that are totally not like a Covid vaccine (transdermal medication, live vaccines, radioactive treatments) as examples of ways that someone could be affected by someone else's treatment. It seems to be making the opposite of the point that is true, which is that Covid vaccines aren't in that category and vaccinated people are not causing infertility unvaccinated people. Like not_a_number said, I think it wouldn't bother me at all in a good faith discussion, but since this part of the discussion has not been that, it's more concerning to me.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Again, though, I think it's important to acknowledge that the idea that someone can be affected by someone else's medical treatment is not far fetched, and address WHY the COVID vaccine cannot work that way. 

 

The fact is, the analogy used was thyroid meds. There are at least two forms of thyroid treatment that I know of that can affect others, and others that cannot. There are, similarly, some vaccines that can affect others. Just not the ones currently approved for COVID in the USA. 

Thanks.  I was also thinking of hormones which can affect others in the vicinity.

I don't think that's the case with the Covid vaxes, but when people respond to questions/musings with arbitrary / simplistic answers, it leaves the real questions unanswered and the skeptics still skeptical.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

Again, though, I think it's important to acknowledge that the idea that someone can be affected by someone else's medical treatment is not far fetched, and address WHY the COVID vaccine cannot work that way. 

 

The fact is, the analogy used was thyroid meds. There are at least two forms of thyroid treatment that I know of that can affect others, and others that cannot. There are, similarly, some vaccines that can affect others. Just not the ones currently approved for COVID in the USA. 

I haven’t come across a thyroid medication, used by humans, that can affect other humans and would really like to know which these are.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TCB said:

I haven’t come across a thyroid medication, used by humans, that can affect other humans and would really like to know which these are.

Radioactive iodine. As mentioned, the other was a transdermal compounding for veterinary use, but it's the same medication used for hyperthyroid in humans. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I agree that's not a productive tactic, and that there are many people who are uncertain and looking for info and who are able to have reasonable discussions about it. I know plenty of unvaccinated people in that category. I do find that different from people who repeatedly try to advance false and/or disproven theories to discourage vaccination. That's a different category.

Yes. Some questions were understandable, valid concerns months ago, but once we have info to show those concerns are unfounded, to continue to promote them as valid questions with no answer is not helpful. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

Radioactive iodine. As mentioned, the other was a transdermal compounding for veterinary use, but it's the same medication used for hyperthyroid in humans. 

 

Ahh yes! And the mechanism for those to affect others  is very clear, as is the possibility of a live vaccine affecting those around. To me, the mRNA vaccine shedding theory, feels like grasping at straws to discredit the vaccine. Not sure why it’s necessary. I would say solid, fact based questioning is quite welcome, but seeming to set out to discredit or destroy something on very flimsy pretexts seems strange. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours 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. 

There are a couple of separate "theories" being pushed by anti-vaxxers as part of the claim that vaccinated people are causing much greater risks than the unvaccinated, neither of which have any scientific basis.

(1) The belief that vaccinated people can somehow "infect" others and cause infertility has two components. The first is the false claim that part of the spike protein in the vaccines is identical to a protein in the human placenta, and therefore the vaccines will cause miscarriages and infertility because the immune system will be trained to attack the placenta. This has been thoroughly debunked. 

The idea that vaccines can cause infertility was then expanded to include the claim that vaccinated people not only "shed" spike proteins, these protein fragments are just as infectious and dangerous as live virus — and I've even seen claims that protein fragments are even more dangerous than the actual virus (which has killed more than 3 million people), despite the fact that they have no way of replicating. According to this "theory," spike protein fragments that magically drift through the air and are inhaled or touched by innocent unvaccinated people will then infect them and cause infertility as well as a whole slew of other medical problems.

(2) The theory that dangerous variants are more likely to develop in vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people, was promoted by a Belgian veterinarian named Geert Vanden Bossche, who claims that the vaccines only prevent symptoms, while allowing the virus to replicate unchecked, while catching actual covid provides much better immunity (unless of course you end up dead instead of immune).

*Coincidentally* Vanden Bossche also claims to be working on a brand new type of vaccine that will solve this problem and he wants the world to stop using vaccines like Pfizer & Moderna, which he claims will cause a massive global catastrophe down the road, and wait for his amazing new vaccine (which he is apparently developing in his garage, since he does not seem to be currently employed). His claims have been thoroughly refuted by many reputable scientists.

Here is a through refutation of Vanden Bossche's bogus theories from McGill University:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 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 am someone who does have to stay away from vaccinated people-MMR vaccinated people because that is a live vaccine and those can shed the virus and I am immunosuppressant/   The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have no way of shedding- they do no include live virus or any virus.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ktgrok said:

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".

 

I developed a bad wound that landed me in a hospital.  I had my O2 checked all the time.  It was a bit lower when I was sick with the MSSA.  I left the hospital in third week of March and have had home nurses and weekly wound doctor visits to check my O2,  My O2 is the same whether masked or not.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I am someone who does have to stay away from vaccinated people-MMR vaccinated people because that is a live vaccine and those can shed the virus and I am immunosuppressant/   The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have no way of shedding- they do no include live virus or any virus.  

How long does the MMR have a risk of shedding? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HeartString said:

How long does the MMR have a risk of shedding? 

7 days.

My last child had to wait until I was off steroids to get her second MMR shot.  And the shedding of the live virus shots is basically only dangerous to people with lowered immunity, either due to medication or genetics or disease or maybe very old age. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And then there's CA.....

UCSF expert: Gavin Newsom should overrule new 'unfathomable' workplace mask rules

 

Even though California is set to align with CDC guidance that individuals fully vaccinated against the coronavirus no longer need to wear masks in most instances on June 15, the state’s workplace safety agency may force employees at businesses across the state — even vaccinated employees — to wear masks for the foreseeable future.

On Thursday, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) approved controversial guidelines that require all employees to wear masks unless everyone in a given room is fully vaccinated. The rules are expected to take effect June 15, the same day the state is scrapping its mask mandate.

Regulators said they may consider loosening guidelines at a later date, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has the power to overrule the agency with an executive order. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, said Newsom should waste no time in overruling the stringent guidelines.

"The problem with Cal/OSHA's decision is that they’ve failed to embrace the effectiveness of vaccines," she said. "The CDC is an extremely cautious organization, but their recommendation that immunity from a vaccine is far more powerful than protection from a mask is sound. California's continued interest in adhering to masks in the face of high vaccination rates, low case rates and the CDC guidance is unfathomable."

Gandhi, who authored seven papers on the benefits of universal masking, does not believe there is any science that justifies Cal/OSHA's decision, especially since there is nothing stopping employees who wish to continue wearing masks from doing so. She stated that the only possible explanation behind the rules is that masking has become a political issue and that lifting mask mandates is seen as a right-wing position.

"The immunity we get from vaccines is a force field," she said. "Masks, social distancing, ventilation, contact tracing, those were all tools, but we now have a force field of protection. The big thing that California has done right is successfully roll out the vaccine, and that success is reflected in our high vaccination rates, our low case rates, and our low hospitalization rates. Those who are unvaccinated are protected by the immunity of those around them, which is the definition of herd immunity. When we open on June 15 and people are not going to be masking, I'm not concerned at all that cases or hospitalizations will go up because of the high population immunity we have in the state."

In addition to being a nuisance for fully vaccinated workers, Cal/OSHA's rules could have other negative effects, Gandhi warned.

"If Cal/OSHA imposes different requirements for businesses in our state that are not based on science, it may make our businesses less desirable for people," she said. "I'm thinking about tourists thinking about coming to visit our hotels, restaurants and other venues. If every other state follows the CDC guidance, we'll be seen as a less desirable place to visit because these rules are arbitrary and not following the science."

 

Edited by Plum
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monica Gandhi seems confused on the reasoning for Cal/OSHA's rules which recognize that unmasked/unvaxed people remain disease vectors. And this will also put social pressure on the unvaxed to get off the dime.

Viva California!

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Plum said:

And then there's CA.....

UCSF expert: Gavin Newsom should overrule new 'unfathomable' workplace mask rules

 

Even though California is set to align with CDC guidance that individuals fully vaccinated against the coronavirus no longer need to wear masks in most instances on June 15, the state’s workplace safety agency may force employees at businesses across the state — even vaccinated employees — to wear masks for the foreseeable future.

On Thursday, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) approved controversial guidelines that require all employees to wear masks unless everyone in a given room is fully vaccinated. The rules are expected to take effect June 15, the same day the state is scrapping its mask mandate.

Regulators said they may consider loosening guidelines at a later date, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has the power to overrule the agency with an executive order. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, said Newsom should waste no time in overruling the stringent guidelines.

"The problem with Cal/OSHA's decision is that they’ve failed to embrace the effectiveness of vaccines," she said. "The CDC is an extremely cautious organization, but their recommendation that immunity from a vaccine is far more powerful than protection from a mask is sound. California's continued interest in adhering to masks in the face of high vaccination rates, low case rates and the CDC guidance is unfathomable."

Gandhi, who authored seven papers on the benefits of universal masking, does not believe there is any science that justifies Cal/OSHA's decision, especially since there is nothing stopping employees who wish to continue wearing masks from doing so. She stated that the only possible explanation behind the rules is that masking has become a political issue and that lifting mask mandates is seen as a right-wing position.

"The immunity we get from vaccines is a force field," she said. "Masks, social distancing, ventilation, contact tracing, those were all tools, but we now have a force field of protection. The big thing that California has done right is successfully roll out the vaccine, and that success is reflected in our high vaccination rates, our low case rates, and our low hospitalization rates. Those who are unvaccinated are protected by the immunity of those around them, which is the definition of herd immunity. When we open on June 15 and people are not going to be masking, I'm not concerned at all that cases or hospitalizations will go up because of the high population immunity we have in the state."

In addition to being a nuisance for fully vaccinated workers, Cal/OSHA's rules could have other negative effects, Gandhi warned.

"If Cal/OSHA imposes different requirements for businesses in our state that are not based on science, it may make our businesses less desirable for people," she said. "I'm thinking about tourists thinking about coming to visit our hotels, restaurants and other venues. If every other state follows the CDC guidance, we'll be seen as a less desirable place to visit because these rules are arbitrary and not following the science."

 

Are CA businesses allowed to ask workers for proof of vaccination and to verify the claims? Without that, businesses have no way of knowing who is and isn't vaxxed and who can safely take off their masks and who needs to keep them on. If people think vaxxed workers should be able to go maskless, then they should support the right of businesses to accurately make that distinction.

  • Like 10
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...