COVID--give up mask or not--input WWYD?

[KSera]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

Fearless Ontario (which is the one who is distributing the Youtube) is an anti-vax activist group.  I wouldn't click on anything that they disseminate even if you gave me a million dollars (Canadian or US)

Yeah, I could see the header, and got the impression it would be something like this. No way I'm supporting a group disseminating info that is causing tens of thousands of people to die that would otherwise have gotten vaccinated and still be alive now. Makes me so angry. And so sad for all the kids who have lost parents to this propaganda.

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Yeah, I could see the header, and got the impression it would be something like this. No way I'm supporting a group disseminating info that is causing tens of thousands of people to die that would otherwise have gotten vaccinated and still be alive now. Makes me so angry. And so sad for all the kids who have lost parents to this propaganda.

And you wonder why I don't think we should coddle people who spread disinformation and whose behaviors spread disease?

The time for not pushing back has long passed in my estimation.

Bill

 

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

Oh my gosh, is this my sister?? I’m sure you’re talking about my mom here. EXACTLY the same. 

Bill, do you think you do any good at all in helping someone change their thinking with all your responses like this? It honestly frustrates me every time you enter one of these conversations, because you are more interested in telling people how bad they are than in sharing information that might change minds. That’s so unhelpful to the goal of getting through this pandemic sooner and with more people still alive. All people do in the face of this kind of reply is dig into their position harder. And that goes not just for the person you’re responding to, but to everyone else reading along that thinks the same way. 

 

2 hours ago, bibiche said:

Yeah, but the thing is none of these people are changing their minds. Why continue to coddle them? I happen to agree with Bill - coddling doesn’t help, so why not tell it straight? It’s frustrating when you’ve seen people get sick and die through no fault of their own when a bunch of selfish people can’t be bothered to get vaxed or even wear a mask to try to stop the spread of disease. 

Ksera is so right. And bibiche because....it makes people like me say, "OK, forget it. Screw you. You want to make me out to be a heartless jerk. Not so black and white. Thank you. Then I won't wear a mask just to show you."  Seriously. I want to put people like that in their place. I don't care if they are right. They are talking down to people and even though I agree with them, it makes me want to go to the other side. He will sway anyone who is wishy washy to his side. Calm, reasonable, I see your side will help those people stay on the side you want them to.  The extreme ones won't change so it isn't worth it.

[Spy Car]

Just now, TexasProud said:

 

Ksera is so right. And bibiche because....it makes people like me say, "OK, forget it. Screw you. You want to make me out to be a heartless jerk. Not so black and white. Thank you. Then I won't wear a mask just to show you."  Seriously. I want to put people like that in their place. I don't care if they are right. They are talking down to people and even though I agree with them, it makes me want to go to the other side. He will sway anyone who is wishy washy to his side. Calm, reasonable, I see your side will help those people stay on the side you want them to.  The extreme ones won't change so it isn't worth it.

Nah. Heartless jerks are those who refuse to take basic precautions that save lives.

You have this upside down.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

53 minutes ago, KSera said:

It honestly frustrates me every time you enter one of these conversations, because you are more interested in telling people how bad they are than in sharing information that might change minds.

On the one hand, I don't think he's going to change minds with the bulldozer approach. 

On the other hand, neither are we with all the data. Neither of those is the least bit effective. 

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

On the one hand, I don't think he's going to change minds with the bulldozer approach. 

On the other hand, neither are we with all the data. Neither of those is the least bit effective. 

No, but it may affect people that are undecided. Some may just do it to spite him. Immature, yes. But it will happen. 

[Pawz4me]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

On the one hand, I don't think he's going to change minds with the bulldozer approach. 

On the other hand, neither are we with all the data. Neither of those is the least bit effective. 

At this point I think there's no pleasing the anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers. They're going to complain about any approach, whether it be reason/logic (data) or shaming or, or, or . . .

They're just using it, twisting it ("it" being whatever approach one takes) as a yet another excuse for not doing the right thing.

We've all tried to help people as much as we can. You cannot help people who aren't willing to help themselves. You just can't.

At this point the prudent course seems to be to ignore them.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Pawz4me

[TexasProud]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

At this point I think there's no pleasing the anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers. They're going to complain about any approach, whether it be reason/logic (data) or shaming or, or, or . . .

They're just using it, twisting it ("it" being whatever approach one takes) as a yet another excuse for not doing the right thing.

We've all tried to help people as much as we can. You cannot help people who aren't willing to help themselves. You just can't.

At this point the prudent course seems to be to ignore them.

You are right about that .  But there is a rather large contingent of vaccine hesitant. THOSE are the people that his bullheaded approach will cause to fall on the side he doesn't want. One county went up from 30 to 40 percent, the other county from 38 to 48 percent vaccination rate. We are getting there. But if I am wary, want to, but am scared because I don't trust the government ( as many Black Americans do not)  and just worried it will hurt me, his approach would make me say screw you. I'm not getting it. Someone who is more compassionate about my concerns would help me to get it.

Again, these are not anti-vaxers. These are vaccine hesitant.

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

33 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Fearless Ontario (which is the one who is distributing the Youtube) is an anti-vax activist group.  I wouldn't click on anything that they disseminate even if you gave me a million dollars (Canadian or US)

I'll have to go look up Fearless Ontario, I don't know anything about them (I'm not Canadian).  It's just a video of Anthony Fauci speaking about respiratory disease spread at a press conference and you're acting like it's nuclear waste.  Or, are you implying that Anthony Fauci is in cahoots with a Canadian anti-vax activist group?  I don't know.  

Edited September 27, 2021 by ChickaDeeDeeDee

[Not_a_Number]

25 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

No, but it may affect people that are undecided. Some may just do it to spite him. Immature, yes. But it will happen. 

I have no idea. I would guess not. I would guess a strong shaming does actually convince some people, although probably not a shaming online. But then I am not sure it's possible to convince people online except those open to being convinced... generally, social pressure is more convincing than just words. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

I'll have to go look up Fearless Ontario, I don't know anything about them (I'm not Canadian).  It's just a video of Anthony Fauci speaking about respiratory disease spread at a press conference and you're acting like it's nuclear waste.  Or, are you implying that Anthony Fauci is in cahoots with a Canadian anti-vax activist group?  I don't know.  

How old is this video and does it have anything to do with COVID? 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

42 minutes ago, KSera said:

Perhaps that comes down to the difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic. Presymptomatics spread the most, which means they are without symptoms at the time they spread. Asymptomatics are people who never show symptoms at all. I think it's accurate that people who later develop symptoms infect more people than those that never do, but they are mostly spreading before those symptoms develop.

If you have a study that is based on data not models I'll take a look at it.  I've read some case studies as well as some of the models and I remain unconvinced by the models.  

[SKL]

6 hours ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

Maybe your Covid views are political (don't know) but mine are not.  Why anyone would trust a politician for medical advice is beyond me!   

Same!

As I've mentioned before, right now most of the people I know who are anti-vax are politically aligned with the party creating vax mandates right now.  Just not on that particular issue - because it's not about party politics to them.

[Not_a_Number]

24 minutes ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

If you have a study that is based on data not models I'll take a look at it.  I've read some case studies as well as some of the models and I remain unconvinced by the models.  

What kind of data would you like? 

[SKL]

6 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

The point is that other people’s behavior affects their risk.

I'm not sure where you stand substantively on the issue in the OP.  You've said more than once that you and your kids intend to stop masking (except where requested/required) once you are all vaccinated.  Well, the OP's family is all vaccinated.

And yes, our behavior affects the risk of certain high risk people (vaccinated or not), but if everyone in contact with those people are vaccinated, then the quantitative risk goes way way down.

And there is a point where we decide that it isn't right to make everyone else restrict their behavior because of a very small risk to a small segment of the population.  For example, based on past data, I'll give a rough estimate that after the Delta wave peters out, there is likely to be 1 school-aged child who has a serious risk of dying in my state from Covid.  The only way to protect that 1 child (and we don't know who that child is) is for all 11 million state residents to vax, boost, and mask until there is no longer any Covid anywhere on the planet.  I don't make public health policy, but I think I know how that's going to go.  It's sad for the families of super-high-risk individuals, yes.  I have relatives myself who are vulnerable, but they know public policy isn't going to be in their favor once the vast majority of Americans are "safe enough."  So then we're back to my family being more careful than average and hoping for the best.

So yeah, we understand that everyone's behavior affects everyone's risk, but it is not rational or even do-able to expect every individual to take all precautions necessary to keep every at-risk individual safe.  (And that goes beyond Covid, since at-risk people also die of other communicable diseases.)  So maybe I'm missing the point of your statement quoted above?

One of my kids masks whether or not there is a requirement.  On one hand, I'm proud of her for putting others first.  On the other hand, I suspect it's more her OCD than her rational ethics acting.  OCD makes her worry that everyday actions could cause people to die.  It's a mental illness that I wouldn't wish on anyone.  She's vaccinated and very unlikely to spread Covid; and even if she did, it would be among other young, healthy people who have a choice to get vaccinated.  I support her choice, but I also support my other child's right to choose not to mask in absence of a request/requirement.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

Nah. Heartless jerks are those who refuse to take basic precautions that save lives.

You have this upside down.

Bill

It doesn't help your case that you have been a past spreader of false [grossly misinterpreted?] Covid info.  Nor does the fact that you have encouraged people to break the rules i.e. cut in line to get vaccinated.

Also, the way you talk to people doesn't tend to make you a good source for who is heartless or a jerk.

[Spy Car]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

It doesn't help your case that you have been a past spreader of false [grossly misinterpreted?] Covid info.  Nor does the fact that you have encouraged people to break the rules i.e. cut in line to get vaccinated.

Also, the way you talk to people doesn't tend to make you a good source for who is heartless or a jerk.

Lying doesn't help your cause.

Bill

[SKL]

1 hour ago, TexasProud said:

No, but it may affect people that are undecided. Some may just do it to spite him. Immature, yes. But it will happen. 

I actually think a lot of people have him on ignore anyway.

I do agree that it is helpful to keep providing concise, understandable info from respected, non-partisan, disinterested sources.  That kind of information tends to admit its limitations, so that later, when it gets refined or even refuted, the source doesn't completely lose credibility.

Too many people feel the need to add their little digs after making their "obvious" statements.  And the little digs cancel out the info for many would-be listeners / honest questioners.  I also think people here tend to forget that having the time, resources, and education to identify trustworthy information is a huge privilege.  We therefore must fight the primitive human tendency to look/talk down upon people who lack that privilege.

[Spy Car]

Just now, SKL said:

I actually think a lot of people have him on ignore anyway.

I do agree that it is helpful to keep providing concise, understandable info from respected, non-partisan, disinterested sources.  That kind of information tends to admit its limitations, so that later, when it gets refined or even refuted, the source doesn't completely lose credibility.

Too many people feel the need to add their little digs after making their "obvious" statements.  And the little digs cancel out the info for many would-be listeners / honest questioners.  I also think people here tend to forget that having the time, resources, and education to identify trustworthy information is a huge privilege.  We therefore must fight the primitive human tendency to look/talk down upon people who lack that privilege.

Please add me to your ignore list. I'd be most grateful.

You are one of the main Covid disinformation spreaders on this forum.

Bill

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Please add me to your ignore list. I'd be most grateful.

You are one of the main Covid disinformation spreaders on this forum.

Bill

Because I have asked a few questions, right?  That makes me a murderer.  Whatever.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

And you wonder why I don't think we should coddle people who spread disinformation and whose behaviors spread disease?

The time for not pushing back has long passed in my estimation.

Bill

 

But what good does it do? I don't recommend coddling disinformation spreaders, but berating and insulting people isn't helpful either, and as said by someone else, it really does turn off people who are fence sitters and not sure what to think. It may seem preposterous that anyone could still be fence sitting on this, but there are still a lot of people without access to good information, or who have been exposed to a lot of bad information who just don't know what to think. They see this kind of stuff, and they know they don't want to be on the "side" with people who act like that, so they go the other way. Just because that's a really bad decision doesn't make it any less true that it happens that way.

1 hour ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

If you have a study that is based on data not models I'll take a look at it.  I've read some case studies as well as some of the models and I remain unconvinced by the models.  

I'll look some up and post them for you.

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

But what good does it do? I don't recommend coddling disinformation spreaders, but berating and insulting people isn't helpful either, and as said by someone else, it really does turn off people who are fence sitters and not sure what to think. It may seem preposterous that anyone could still be fence sitting on this, but there are still a lot of people without access to good information, or who have been exposed to a lot of bad information who just don't know what to think. They see this kind of stuff, and they know they don't want to be on the "side" with people who act like that, so they go the other way. Just because that's a really bad decision doesn't make it any less true that it happens that way.

 

Information on vaccines and masking has been widely shared on this forum.

Ignorance and indifference are not quality excuses at this point in the pandemic in my estimation.

Bill

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

I'll have to go look up Fearless Ontario, I don't know anything about them (I'm not Canadian).  It's just a video of Anthony Fauci speaking about respiratory disease spread at a press conference and you're acting like it's nuclear waste.  Or, are you implying that Anthony Fauci is in cahoots with a Canadian anti-vax activist group?  I don't know.  

If you read my post and the post I quoted, you would know that the issue was providing clicks to an anti-vax activist group.  K'sera doesn't want to do that and neither do I.  I don't know you - you are new and jumping right into controversial threads so I'm  leery of anyone who is promoting videos from a group like that. 

And the idea that I am imply that Doctor Fauci is in cahoots with a Canadian anti-vax activist group is ridiculous.  What I would be concerned about is that a group like that would use things out of context to promote their agenda which is diametrically opposed to his. 

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

I'll look some up and post them for you.

I don't have time at the moment to read through all the ones I post, so I will share with the caveat that I'm sharing these with just a quick skim right now. Usually I would read through before posting to make sure there is nothing glaring wrong with the study.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article

Quote

In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5

Quote

We estimated that 44% (95% confidence interval, 30–57%) of secondary cases were infected during the index cases’ presymptomatic stage, in settings with substantial household clustering, active case finding and quarantine outside the home

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e1.htm

Quote

Following identification of a case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a health care worker, 76 of 82 residents of an SNF were tested for SARS-CoV-2; 23 (30.3%) had positive test results, approximately half of whom were asymptomatic or presymptomatic on the day of testing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02259-2 (this one specific to Delta, which is even more likely to spread during the presymptomatic phase)

Quote

As a result, 74% of infections with Delta took place during the presymptomatic phase

Honestly, I could keep going and going. There is so much out there all concluding the same thing about this. Lack of symptoms does not mean anything as far as whether someone could spread Covid to others.

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

Following identification of a case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a health care worker, 76 of 82 residents of an SNF were tested for SARS-CoV-2; 23 (30.3%) had positive test results, approximately half of whom were asymptomatic or presymptomatic on the day of testing.

Not commenting on the other parts of your post, but just wanted to point out that this is saying the infected [B] people's positive tests were done while [B] were asymptomatic or presymptomatic.  The presence of a positive test does not speak to whether or when the tested person [B] will (or has) spread Covid.

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not commenting on the other parts of your post, but just wanted to point out that this is saying the infected [B] people's positive tests were done while [B] were asymptomatic or presymptomatic.  The presence of a positive test does not speak to whether or when the tested person [B] will (or has) spread Covid.

Agree. As I said, I was posting pretty quickly, but that did stick out at me when I was posting it. Doesn’t mean that’s irrelevant, though. just not sufficient on its own. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I'm not sure where you stand substantively on the issue in the OP.  You've said more than once that you and your kids intend to stop masking (except where requested/required) once you are all vaccinated.  Well, the OP's family is all vaccinated.

I'd mask if community transmission is very high and hospitals are full. I think I implied that in my response if I didn't state it outright. 

[Ausmumof3]

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

On the one hand, I don't think he's going to change minds with the bulldozer approach. 

On the other hand, neither are we with all the data. Neither of those is the least bit effective. 

Apparently edutainment is the way to do it.  We need some kind of reality TV show featuring people role modelling correct Covid behaviours.  Or maybe doctor doctor but with a Covid outbreak.  Or does that already exist?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

Apparently edutainment is the way to do it.  We need some kind of reality TV show featuring people role modelling correct Covid behaviours.  Or maybe doctor doctor but with a Covid outbreak.  Or does that already exist?

Hahahah, honestly, I think it's hopeless, because I think the social pressures in some parts of the country are so against COVID mitigation. I think that if that changes, it'll be very slowly, and once it becomes less pressing an issue. 

[desertflower]

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Information on vaccines and masking has been widely shared on this forum.

Ignorance and indifference are not quality excuses at this point in the pandemic in my estimation.

Bill

 

This is still not a good reason.  I rarely go on the chat forum.  (Except for some reason lately there has been a ton of reports from the chat forum. 🤔) 

Plus, I don't go to a homeschooling forum for medical advice.  To hear about people experiences, sure.  But ultimately I consult a doctor for medical information. 

[Spy Car]

14 minutes ago, desertflower said:

This is still not a good reason.  I rarely go on the chat forum.  (Except for some reason lately there has been a ton of reports from the chat forum. 🤔) 

Plus, I don't go to a homeschooling forum for medical advice.  To hear about people experiences, sure.  But ultimately I consult a doctor for medical information. 

If you read the Covid threads in the Chat room I think you'd find they've been outstanding sources of information (along with a wee bit of trolling by the usual suspects).

Bill

 

[mathnerd]

On 9/26/2021 at 11:36 AM, SeaConquest said:

You're assuming that our present vaccine strategy is the end game. We currently only have intra-muscular vaccines, which are likely not the best for this airborne virus. They are working on intra-nasal vaccines, better anti-virals, better therapeutics, better air filtration throughout buildings/transportation, etc., and tons of other strategies of which I am sure that I am not aware. We are not even two years into this. 

I came to this thread to reiterate exactly this! Most anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers that I know of are losing their minds over yet another Fall and Winter season with reduced social outlets. It is as if not being able to go to Peet's coffee and hang out with their friends or have a Spa day to unwind from the stress of the pandemic is the end of their world. The truth is that this is still a novel virus and even though we had zero hopes of solutions 2 years ago, we have a vaccine available around every corner of our country these days. There are other mitigations and cures in the pipeline. They will be duly completed, tested and released for general use when the time is right. Until then, I consider it my patriotic duty to my country and the decent thing toward my fellow human being to not become a hospital statistic of Covid. I respect HCW who are doing their utter best to deal with the repercussions of politicians meddling with medical advise. People have lived alone in the prairies long before us and survived a lot more hardship than being told to wear a mask in Walmart or to order curbside pickup of food or to stay home and watch Netflix and surf the web on a smartphone. To me wearing a mask is no big deal (I double mask). To my teen, wearing a mask is no big deal too.

Better times will come. We need to learn to be more patient:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/09/27/pfizer-tests-pill-that-could-prevent-covid-infection/?sh=32e14cbe39fc

 

[Not_a_Number]

41 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

If you read the Covid threads in the Chat room I think you'd find they've been outstanding sources of information (along with a wee bit of trolling by the usual suspects).

Bill

I've definitely come here for my daily dose of good information 😄 . I find that actually combines well with all the personal narratives. 

But then I think that case studies are an underutilized source of information. If you can't have quality data, it's better to have detailed case studies than it is to have shoddy data that someone misapplies statistics to 😉 . 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

 

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Not commenting on the other parts of your post, but just wanted to point out that this is saying the infected [B] people's positive tests were done while [B] were asymptomatic or presymptomatic.  The presence of a positive test does not speak to whether or when the tested person [B] will (or has) spread Covid.

Exactly, this was based on PCR testing, rather than a culture.  Only a culture can determine how much viable virus a person has.  PCR tests only detect the presence/absence of particles.   

from the CDC site https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/faqs.html#Interpreting-Results-of-Diagnostic-Tests: 

Quote

No. Ct values should not be used to determine an individual’s  viral load, how infectious an individual person may be, or when an individual person can be released from isolation or quarantine.

Although there is an association between Ct value and amount of genetic material, the correlation between Ct values and the amount of virus in the original specimen is imperfect. It is therefore problematic to infer any relationship between the Ct value and viral load for a person’s specimen, and whether the virus is infectious or non-infectious.

Additionally,  drawing conclusions from a SNF about community spread in a broader population has it's own challenges.  

 

I'm having trouble with quoting/formatting but I'm going to post imperfectly anyway.  I'm going to skim each link first and if I don't notice any deal breakers for me I'll read more thoroughly later.  If I notice something sketchy I'll comment on the first thing I notice and move on.  

 

From this one https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article:

Quote

we estimated key parameters such as serial interval and incubation period

Serial interval is the time from the start of symptoms in the virus transmitter until symptom onset in the virus receiver.  Incubation is the time from infection to the development of symptoms.  Their estimates for these drive their model.  While interesting, models don't *prove* the amount of presymptomatic spread.  There can be problems here.  

Also, unless I misread, the presymptomatic spreader in this case attended several carnival events.  Call me cynical, but someone who is excited about carnival might not be the most honest about the symptoms they were experiencing.  

 

 In this one:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 they base their "viral load" on PCR tests which is an improper use of the test.  Also, none of the data here are from the presymptomatic portion all of that is modeled.  There is nothing here that proves presymptomatic infectiousness rather than symptomatic infectiousness.  

 

 This (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02259-2 ) one also seems to be based off improper PCR assumptions, not going to read or comment further on it.  

 

 

3 hours ago, KSera said:

I don't have time at the moment to read through all the ones I post, so I will share with the caveat that I'm sharing these with just a quick skim right now. Usually I would read through before posting to make sure there is nothing glaring wrong with the study.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e1.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02259-2 (this one specific to Delta, which is even more likely to spread during the presymptomatic phase)

Honestly, I could keep going and going. There is so much out there all concluding the same thing about this. Lack of symptoms does not mean anything as far as whether someone could spread Covid to others.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

While interesting, models don't *prove* the amount of presymptomatic spread. 

What would prove it?

[SeaConquest]

35 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

What would prove it?

Serial rapid antigen tests prove it just fine. She's ignoring that completely. We don't need to go around having everyone turn their homes into little microbio labs, growing cultures in their spare time. That's the beauty of these very easy and fairly accurate tests. And many research labs do keep track of quantitative PCR. It's just not done when you and I go to take a pcr at Kaiser. But, Kaiser is likely keeping track of that info internally. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SeaConquest said:

Serial rapid antigen tests prove it just fine. She's ignoring that completely. We don't need to go around having everyone turn their homes into little microbio labs, growing cultures in their spare time. That's the beauty of these very easy and fairly accurate tests. And many research labs do keep track of quantitative PCR. It's just not done when you and I go to take a pcr at Kaiser. But, Kaiser is likely keeping track of that info internally. 

I'm just curious what she thought would constitute a proof. 

[KSera]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm just curious what she thought would constitute a proof. 

I'd also be curious to turn it around and ask where the better proof is that despite dozens of studies showing presymptomatic spread predominating, that presymptomatic spread is actually rare and we can safely assume people without symptoms aren't contagious.

The immediate dismissal of anything using PCR tests is always a tell. Goes along with the same kind of "sources" as Fearless Ontario and other anti-vax groups. The end goal is usually to minimize Covid and discredit the vaccines. To what end, I still honestly don't know.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, KSera said:

I'd also be curious to turn it around and ask where the better proof is that despite dozens of studies showing presymptomatic spread predominating, that presymptomatic spread is actually rare and we can safely assume people without symptoms aren't contagious.

A very valid question. 

 

Just now, KSera said:

The immediate dismissal of anything using PCR tests is always a tell. Goes along with the same kind of "sources" as Fearless Ontario and other anti-vax groups. The end goal is usually to minimize Covid and discredit the vaccines. To what end, I still honestly don't know.

Yes, I'm not confused about this 😉 . 

[SeaConquest]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm just curious what she thought would constitute a proof. 

She doesn't want to find proof. She wants to pretend that it is January 2020 and we think that we can tell when someone has Covid. That way, she can go around without a mask and feel fine about it because she is "healthy." But, anyone who has been paying attention to the science (instead of anti-vax YouTube videos) knows that isn't true, which is why Covid is such a bugger of a virus. If we could just avoid people who are obviously sick, we wouldn't be in this predicament. It's a silent killer precisely because we don't know who is carrying the virus until it has already been spread to others with an R0 upwards of 6. 

So, posters can feel free to call us an "echo chamber" if it helps them sleep at night. Whatever it takes, I suppose. But, that's pretty rich on a homeschooling message board that prides itself on classical education and giving kids the critical thinking skills to see through misinformation and logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks.   

[wathe]

9 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Fearless Ontario (which is the one who is distributing the Youtube) is an anti-vax activist group.  I wouldn't click on anything that they disseminate even if you gave me a million dollars (Canadian or US)

 

8 hours ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

I'll have to go look up Fearless Ontario, I don't know anything about them (I'm not Canadian). 

I've never heard of them.  I don't think they get much local press.  This is their Facebook page.

Ah, they seem to be associated with a provincial fringe politician who is, well, interesting - charged for breaking public health rules eight times, multiple racist and other insensitive tweets, sons tasered and charged with public intoxication after a refusal to mask incident in a bar etc.  He was kicked out of the Conservative party for bad behaviour and now sits as an independent.

 

[SKL]

9 hours ago, KSera said:

I'd also be curious to turn it around and ask where the better proof is that despite dozens of studies showing presymptomatic spread predominating, that presymptomatic spread is actually rare and we can safely assume people without symptoms aren't contagious.

The immediate dismissal of anything using PCR tests is always a tell. Goes along with the same kind of "sources" as Fearless Ontario and other anti-vax groups. The end goal is usually to minimize Covid and discredit the vaccines. To what end, I still honestly don't know.

To be fair, the government funded health gurus did previously (and not all that long ago) state that symptomatic people were the main spreaders.

I do understand that likely changed with Delta.  But I don't expect everyone in the world to understand that.  I do not recall a comparable public announcement revising the official word previously stating that symptomatic people were the main spreaders.  Actually I think the general public messaging about this continues to be just as awful as it was in summer 2020.

It doesn't help that public officials are notoriously inconsistent when it comes to masking.

Edited September 28, 2021 by SKL

[TexasProud]

15 hours ago, mathnerd said:

I came to this thread to reiterate exactly this! Most anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers that I know of are losing their minds over yet another Fall and Winter season with reduced social outlets. It is as if not being able to go to Peet's coffee and hang out with their friends or have a Spa day to unwind from the stress of the pandemic is the end of their world. The truth is that this is still a novel virus and even though we had zero hopes of solutions 2 years ago, we have a vaccine available around every corner of our country these days. There are other mitigations and cures in the pipeline. They will be duly completed, tested and released for general use when the time is right. Until then, I consider it my patriotic duty to my country and the decent thing toward my fellow human being to not become a hospital statistic of Covid. I respect HCW who are doing their utter best to deal with the repercussions of politicians meddling with medical advise. People have lived alone in the prairies long before us and survived a lot more hardship than being told to wear a mask in Walmart or to order curbside pickup of food or to stay home and watch Netflix and surf the web on a smartphone. To me wearing a mask is no big deal (I double mask). To my teen, wearing a mask is no big deal too.

Better times will come. We need to learn to be more patient:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/09/27/pfizer-tests-pill-that-could-prevent-covid-infection/?sh=32e14cbe39fc

 

Well, I am not an anti-masker or anti-vaxer and I am losing my mind. Maybe hanging out with friends isn't a big deal to you, but it is to me. My guess is there was a lot of suicide on the prairies, they just were not reported...  But really most people on the prairies had barn raisings, church potlucks that lasted all day.  They just didn't sit in their homes.  Being social is a part of being human.  Don't dismiss my feelings as unimportant or sisssy.  20 months of this is a REALLY REALLY long time for someone who was used to be out among people 80 percent of her waking life. 

[Dmmetler]

For me on the social side, vaxing/masking is what allows things to be more normal. It’s what lets me sit on the porch or in my living room and with my best friend who is also struggling with having a child go to college and eat Thai takeout-not the same as meeting at the restaurant weekly like we use to, but a lot closer than it was until vaccination was available, when we managed to meet twice, outdoors at a park, and either baked or froze. IF a restaurant is requiring proof of vaccination or a negative tesf, I’d have felt comfortable eating indoors this summer, and likely would again in another couple of weeks now that I’ve been able to get a booster. IF proof of vaccination or a negative test is required to go to a theater, I might actually be able to do the local touring shows again. My kid’s college is doing Black Cat this week-their version of homecoming, where each night a different class hosts a party and skit night and activities, and this weekend is a formal. Made possible by vaccination and testing mandates. Emotionally, my extremely Covid anxious kid is in a better place than they have been for a year (when one of their best adult friends died due to COVID)-and it has everything to do with being part of a community where everyone is doing their part. 
 

I am sick and tired of having to sacrifice MY social life  because other people won’t do the minimum and went back to having a normal social life in, oh, May of 2020. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

To be fair, the government funded health gurus did previously (and not all that long ago) state that symptomatic people were the main spreaders.

I do understand that likely changed with Delta.  But I don't expect everyone in the world to understand that.  I do not recall a comparable public announcement revising the official word previously stating that symptomatic people were the main spreaders.  Actually I think the general public messaging about this continues to be just as awful as it was in summer 2020.

It was pretty well known and publicized since at least summer 2020, if not earlier, that people with no symptoms were responsible for much of the spread, and that’s what makes this virus particularly effective. When I was looking up articles about that yesterday, many studies and articles from mid 2020 came up. I agree public messaging has frequently been not great, but even more that it has been purposely and further confused by bad actors. The idea that “I don’t need to worry about spreading if I’m not sick” has been a talking point of Covid deniers and anti maskers from the start. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

It was pretty well known and publicized since at least summer 2020, if not earlier, that people with no symptoms were responsible for much of the spread, and that’s what makes this virus particularly effective. When I was looking up articles about that yesterday, many studies and articles from mid 2020 came up. I agree public messaging has frequently been not great, but even more that it has been purposely and further confused by bad actors. The idea that “I don’t need to worry about spreading if I’m not sick” has been a talking point of Covid deniers and anti maskers from the start. 

For God's sake, I remember this fact from April 2020! Literally April 2020. When people were looking at the early US superspreader events, they were practically all with presymptomatic people. 

[SKL]

Just now, KSera said:

It was pretty well known and publicized since at least summer 2020, if not earlier, that people with no symptoms were responsible for much of the spread, and that’s what makes this virus particularly effective. When I was looking up articles about that yesterday, many studies and articles from mid 2020 came up. I agree public messaging has frequently been not great, but even more that it has been purposely and further confused by bad actors. The idea that “I don’t need to worry about spreading if I’m not sick” has been a talking point of Covid deniers and anti maskers from the start. 

That was the word last summer, but they revised it later to acknowledge that most of the spread was by people with symptoms.

(I did always understand that there was still asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread, but that it was less than spread by symptomatic people.)

I do see a lot of messaging that appears deliberately obtuse, mainly on facebook (should probably re-name it facebot).  And that is certainly disappointing.  And surprising that the posters either are that dumb/gullible, or think I'm that dumb/gullible.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

For God's sake, I remember this fact from April 2020! Literally April 2020. When people were looking at the early US superspreader events, they were practically all with presymptomatic people. 

You are forgetting how the research-led messaging changed over time.

[Dmmetler]

If the messaging was so bad, why were so many of my teen/tween students last year, as well as my own teen, so terrified about the possibility that they might accidentally spread it to someone more vulnerable and not even know it? That was a major fear many of my kids verbalized last year-and these weren't kids talking to each other, so it wasn't that they were feeding each other's fears, nor were they attending the same school-they were a mix of private, public from a couple of different schools and even districts, since we have five within about an hour radius, and homeschooled.  I don't think I know a single kid scared of getting COVID and dying themselves-or, at least, not before Delta. They were all scared of killing someone else. 

 

It relaxed a bit last summer-but even then the message was that fully vaccinated individuals did not spread it (until Delta changed the picture)-not that non-symptomatic individuals did not spread it. 

 

If kids have picked up that message, how is it that adults are claiming they've never heard/seen it? 

 

 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

 

If the messaging was so bad, why were so many of my teen/tween students last year, as well as my own teen, so terrified about the possibility that they might accidentally spread it to someone more vulnerable and not even know it? That was a major fear many of my kids verbalized last year-and these weren't kids talking to each other, so it wasn't that they were feeding each other's fears, nor were they attending the same school-they were a mix of private, public from a couple of different schools and even districts, since we have five within about an hour radius, and homeschooled.  I don't think I know a single kid scared of getting COVID and dying themselves-or, at least, not before Delta. They were all scared of killing someone else. 

 

 

Exactly the same here (and we live nowhere near you). My young adult kids weren’t worried for themselves, but did not want to unknowingly get an older adult sick, so have been exceedingly careful, and the sentiment is prevalent in their peer group, which is similarly careful.