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

[SKL]

Here's a relatively recent article stating:

"...the risk of transmission is highest when patients had mild or moderate disease severity."

It is not surprising that mixed and complex messages leave lay people confused.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210826170205.htm

[Wheres Toto]

Getting updated/changing as new or better information comes available is exactly how science is supposed to work.    That's not a flaw, it's a feature.  If you refuse to change with new information, that's crap science.

Unfortunately too many people are unaware of this and expect definitive answers immediately in the middle of a pandemic.   That's some delusional thinking right there.   Even if you know nothing about science, why would you expect immediate, 100% correct information in the middle of a pandemic that's brand new for the entire world?

And, yes even though it's been 18 months, that's still very new when talking about figuring out how a virus works and mutates.

[SKL]

12 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. 

Also, what is the point of your "for God's sake"?

So you think the science has not changed since April 2020, and we are stupid if we think maybe it has?

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

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

On this one, it hasn't. There was lots of quibbling about whether there's "asymptomatic" spread, which some people latched onto, but all that was ever about was whether people who NEVER showed symptoms spread it (they don't that much). It was pretty much always known that people who EVENTUALLY showed symptoms spread it before they did show them. 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Wheres Toto said:

Getting updated/changing as new or better information comes available is exactly how science is supposed to work.    That's not a flaw, it's a feature.  If you refuse to change with new information, that's crap science.

Unfortunately too many people are unaware of this and expect definitive answers immediately in the middle of a pandemic.   That's some delusional thinking right there.   Even if you know nothing about science, why would you expect immediate, 100% correct information in the middle of a pandemic that's brand new for the entire world?

And, yes even though it's been 18 months, that's still very new when talking about figuring out how a virus works and mutates.

I agree, which is why we should not be berating people for not permanently accepting whatever was said in April 2020.

On one hand, more has been learned, and on the other hand, there is still more to be learned.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Also, what is the point of your "for God's sake"?

So you think the science has not changed since April 2020, and we are stupid if we think maybe it has?

What's the point? It's frustrating, that's why. I can't believe we're still talking about whether there's serious spread by people without symptoms. That's, like, a big yawn at this point. Anyone who's paying attention to reliable sources knows that it's the case. 

[KSera]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

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

There is so much out there to show this was well known by Summer of 2020 that I’ll just share one link and let you look more up yourself. This is from AP News service (so would have gotten wide distribution) on April 1, 2020. In the pandemic’s infancy:

More evidence indicates healthy people can spread virus

(Note the use of the word “more” in the headline, indicating this wasn’t even the first news of this.)

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

On this one, it hasn't. There was lots of quibbling about whether there's "asymptomatic" spread, which some people latched onto, but all that was ever about was whether people who NEVER showed symptoms spread it (they don't that much). It was pretty much always known that people who EVENTUALLY showed symptoms spread it before they did show them. 

Well I apparently remember more about these developments than you do.

It doesn't matter right now.  I think we are on the same page substantively regarding who can spread this bug.  However, I disagree with your attitude toward people who are at a different point in their understanding.

[Not_a_Number]

There are people ON THIS BOARD who have been infected by presymptomatic people or who've had relatives infected this way. In fact, it's the rule and not the exception!! The people who had gotten infected did not get from someone sneezing or coughing nearby, for the excellent reason that currently NO ONE is hanging out near people who are sneezing and coughing. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

However, I disagree with your attitude toward people who are at a different point in their understanding.

I'd like to call this a point in their willful misunderstanding, frankly. I don't think people who don't know about asymptomatic spread haven't heard about it, they simply don't believe it, and nothing I will say will change their mind. 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

There is so much out there to show this was well known by Summer of 2020 that I’ll just share one link and let you look more up yourself. This is from AP News service (so would have gotten wide distribution) on April 1, 2020. In the pandemic’s infancy:

More evidence indicates healthy people can spread virus

(Note the use of the word “more” in the headline, indicating this wasn’t even the first news of this.)

I didn't miss any of this when it happened, but I saw other developments also.

But like I said, it doesn't matter substantively.  What matters is educating people who have in fact received different messages and may benefit from respectful assistance in understanding them.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

What matters is educating people who have in fact received different messages and may benefit from respectful assistance in understanding them.

That seems like an excellent idea if you can manage it. I'm just feeling dubious about my ability to change anyone's mind at this point in time. 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There are people ON THIS BOARD who have been infected by presymptomatic people or who've had relatives infected this way. In fact, it's the rule and not the exception!! The people who had gotten infected did not get from someone sneezing or coughing nearby, for the excellent reason that currently NO ONE is hanging out near people who are sneezing and coughing. 

Well, no one other than those people's parents, children, friends, schoolmates, coworkers, customers, teachers, students, patients, health professionals, etc. etc.

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Here's a relatively recent article stating:

"...the risk of transmission is highest when patients had mild or moderate disease severity."

It is not surprising that mixed and complex messages leave lay people confused.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210826170205.htm

Why didn’t you share the first part of the quote as well?

“Individuals with COVID-19 are most likely to spread the virus to close contacts two days before the onset of symptoms to three days after symptoms appear, and the risk of transmission is highest when patients had mild or moderate disease severity”

So, people with mild to moderate disease are most likely to spread from two days before to three days after symptom onset. 

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

I agree, which is why we should not be berating people for not permanently accepting whatever was said in April 2020.

On one hand, more has been learned, and on the other hand, there is still more to be learned.

I think I’m one of the ones being accused of berating people for this? I haven’t done any berating. I corrected misinformation, which is not the same thing at all.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

Why didn’t you share the first part of the quote as well?

“Individuals with COVID-19 are most likely to spread the virus to close contacts two days before the onset of symptoms to three days after symptoms appear, and the risk of transmission is highest when patients had mild or moderate disease severity”

So, people with mild to moderate disease are most likely to spread from two days before to three days after symptom onset.

Well perhaps we should also include the title of the article, which would be the only part that got read by many people:  "Symptomatic COVID patients are more contagious, study finds."  The implication of both the headline and the intro are that, while yes, presymptomatic and asymptomatic people can spread the virus, it is more often spread when the spreader is showing symptoms.

Point being that it is not insane or willfully obtuse to believe that people without symptoms are safer to be around than people with symptoms.

Edited September 28, 2021 by SKL

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

That seems like an excellent idea if you can manage it. I'm just feeling dubious about my ability to change anyone's mind at this point in time. 

And I'm more than fine if you don't try.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The problem isn't not knowing everything about viruses and especially this virus.  It's that once people learn the information some people are still insisting that it's not true, or that because the information usually comes in the form of a percentage that it doesn't count or that it's somehow unfair that we have new information or that we're special snowflakes that shouldn't have to abide by it because it magically won't touch us.  It doesn't have to involve any drama at all.  I read new accurate information from accurate scientific sources and I make (often minute) changes to my routine.  Easy Peasy.  (Yes, easy peasy even if it comes with some discomfort.)

Fair has nothing to do with keeping you and your family and your community safe.  Rights have nothing to do with keeping you and your family and your community safe.  It's just simple mitigation practices which are based on scientific data.  (I realize that there can be fairness  issues etc. with the dissemination and implementation of mitigation practices like access to testing, access to vaccines etc. but I am talking about the identification of what those mitigation practices should be.) 

[KeriJ]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

It's like they've thrown out everything we all knew about viruses before the pandemic. 

It's not like presymptomatic spread is some novel concept. We've all had viruses. All of us know that we've gotten them from people who didn't have symptoms yet. 

Come on...

 

This one of the things that has baffled me. We are moms. We all know about little Susie sitting by little Sally in Sunday School.  Everyone is fine. But Sally's mom calls on Monday morning to say that she woke up with a fever. And voila, Tuesday morning, so does Susie. 

It's how it has always gone.  Why are people suddenly acting like "presymptomatic spread" is a lie from Big Pharma or the evil government?? It has confused me all during this pandemic. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by KeriJ

[Syllieann]

6 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

This one of the things that has baffled me. We are moms. We all know about little Susie sitting by little Sally in Sunday School.  Everyone is fine. But Sally's mom calls on Monday morning to say that she woke up with a fever. And voila, Tuesday morning, so does Susie. 

It's how it has always gone.  Why are people suddenly acting like "presymptomatic spread" is a lie from Big Pharma or the evil government?? It has confused me all during this pandemic. 

Because they need that to justify the enormous tantrum they are throwing over masks.

[easypeasy]

On 9/24/2021 at 10:44 AM, sbgrace said:

I would love some input into my family situation:

We live in a low vax, largely anti-mask area. My community is currently declining from our worst wave of infections.

My question: My teens are the only ones indoor masking in most of their activies and social situations. Both would like to stop masking soon. Should I just tell them it's fine to stop when they are ready or in whatever situations they want and assume we may get infected? My thought is that, given this is going to just continue, we will get infected at some point. Maybe it's better to get it sooner--closer to our vaccines and grandparent boosters--than later? Essentially--given relatively low risk and that this is going to be endemic, is it time to give up? 

Risk background: My immediate family is vaccinated, with 2nd doses in April. My parents and in laws all received the Pfizer booster shot last week--so soon I no longer have to worry as much about infecting them, which has been my largest worry in this whole thing. 

My husband and I are late 40's but with no known risk factors for severe outcomes-though I'm unclear on how much vaccines protect us from long covid. One son I worry infection might aggravate his anxiety.  I'm not sure booster doses will even be wise in teens given the myocarditis risk.  I don't expect to be offered boosters soon anyway.

We have a long planned (rescheduled last year) vacation to the Grand Canyon coming up in December. I would hate to get COVID during that trip. 

I would really appreciate thoughts.  WWYD 

not reading other replies - but we have been super careful during most of this. We were signed up for vaccinations at the first opportunity. I helped others schedule their appointments for months. We plan to get boosters when we are eligible (and have a couple free days to feel sort of yucky, based on our experiences last go'round).

We went without masks over the summer. The numbers here were just super low and it wasn't an issue. Then, we went back to masks when the numbers began to rise. But, we were tired. We weren't probably *always* masking all of the moments...

Aaaaand, we got the 'Rona. And, honestly? For us?  We're all sort of glad to have had it and be done with it for a little while, at least. We, personally, don't know anyone who's gotten it twice (I know it happens!!! We just don't know any). So, we have extra protection now and will go about our lives. Two of us were only mildly affected (like, a sore throat) and the other two "felt crappy" for a couple of days.

I'm considered high risk for Covid and was one of the barely affected people. One of my kids (who, when they get sick, they get SICK) was one of those who "felt sort of crappy" for a couple of days and had to miss out on many activities/work for ~14 days while they stayed at home. Our bonus teenager also felt "pretty crappy." (we, of course, stayed home the minute one of us thought they might be sick and got tested and stayed home til the PCR tests were back).

Both kids away at college have remained 'rona free & they've taken similar more relaxed policies (masks when required, but using their own judgment otherwise).

Mainly, we mask in situations that make us feel uneasy, but we aren't going to overthink it anymore. My kids wear masks in situations where they are uneasy, or where it's really busy, or they're around lots of strangers, but around friends or whatever, I doubt they're wearing masks at all. And, that's okay. (my "kids" are all adults, so they pave their own path on this). They all wear masks at work (but, I do not. It's a small office and no one else wears a mask there, and I decided I didn't want to either in that circumstance).

Honestly, at this point, for *us*, it's okay. We're taking protective measures where we can, but my family's mental health was in dire straits for a while (this is a house full of extroverts who did the right thing and pretty much stayed home for over a year... wilting...) and they've all decided where their comfort zone is.

They do, of COURSE, wear masks into any business that requests it. They wear masks around ANY friends/family who request or are of higher risk categories without even asking about it.

I wore a mask to WalMart the other day (it was super busy) but didn't at Target (I could wander around without bumping into people there - but I did put on a mask when I went to check out because there were people in line with me and there was someone working in front of me to check me out at the register). But, I mostly still do order/pickup.

We're happy with the new arrangement.

Edited September 28, 2021 by easypeasy

[KSera]

Just now, Syllieann said:

Because they need that to justify the enormous tantrum they are throwing over masks.

The mask thing is just baffling. Of all the things to make your life issue, masks?? I get it’s way more comfortable and convenient to not wear them, but wow. It’s just not a big ask during a pandemic and these people are making their kids feel victimized for wearing the same masks that millions of other kids are wearing without a second thought. Besides being ridiculous, it’s just not kind to make this such a problem for their poor kids. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, KeriJ said:

This one of the things that has baffled me. We are moms. We all know about little Susie sitting by little Sally in Sunday School.  Everyone is fine. But Sally's mom calls on Monday morning to say that she woke up with a fever. And voila, Tuesday morning, so does Susie. 

It's how it has always gone.  Why are people suddenly acting like "presymptomatic spread" is a lie from Big Pharma or the evil government?? It has confused me all during this pandemic. 

I was just listening to radio coverage of the approaching healthcare worker vaccination deadline in my state.  They had a soundbite from a nurse (I sure hope that she's not an RN) saying that she'd rather quit or be fired and not get the vaccine because "I am not the type of person to be a superspreader".  Oh?  And what type of person is that?  And how would you even know if you were asymptomatic or presymptomatic?  It boggles my mind. 

[Laura Corin]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

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. 

Yes. When we visited our daughter last October,  she and her housemates were very concerned not to unknowingly infect us.

[SlowRiver]

I would be thinking about what your plan is, long term, and see how your situation now fits into it.

My view, which many epidemiologists agree with, is that covid is going to be an endemic disease. As such, most people will get it eventually. If they are vaccinated, and they are teenagers, chances are it will not be that serious, (although in a way that isn't such an important consideration if they will be exposed eventually anyway.) So for me the main points are that I and my kids will almost certainly have it in the next five years even if vaccination rates are high (actually we have had it already, but I'm imagining if we hadn't,) I have no intention of masking permanently, and they are low risk anyway - there are plenty of other things they do in their lives that will be more risky for them. The only thing that might happen by waiting is better management, but then it's been almost two years and at this point I think major breakthroughs will be less common. So I'd leave it up to them.

So, what conditions do you think are likely to prevail long term, and what are you willing to do , or not do, to deal with them?

[ktgrok]

I hope all are keeping in mind that rates in the community effect those who are too young to be vaccinated - which will be those under 5 soon. I hate seeing people act like anyone who wants to be vaccinated can, when that is not the case. 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

On 9/27/2021 at 10:49 PM, 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. T

You do realize that the issue with "anti-vaxxer" Andrew Wakefield's research was the his use of PCR?  

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

You do realize that the issue with "anti-vaxxer" Andrew Wakefield's research was the his use of PCR?  

I had the strong impression that there were MANY issues with his "research," matching your use of suggestive quotation marks... 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I had the strong impression that there were MANY issues with his "research," matching your use of suggestive quotation marks... 

I'm talking about the key testimony in the '08 court case

[KSera]

26 minutes ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

You do realize that the issue with "anti-vaxxer" Andrew Wakefield's research was the his use of PCR?  

 

No, I’m aware of other issues with his research, but I see zero relevance here. 

[Not_a_Number]

18 hours ago, ktgrok said:

I hope all are keeping in mind that rates in the community effect those who are too young to be vaccinated - which will be those under 5 soon. I hate seeing people act like anyone who wants to be vaccinated can, when that is not the case. 

This is a good point. On the other hand, everyone I know with kids that little, no matter how cautious they were last year, has their kids in daycare. 

So... I can imagine being cautious with people who are being cautious themselves, but I'm not going to remain super careful with people who are otherwise not being careful at all. 

[regentrude]

14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

This is a good point. On the other hand, everyone I know with kids that little, no matter how cautious they were last year, has their kids in daycare. 

So... I can imagine being cautious with people who are being cautious themselves, but I'm not going to remain super careful with people who are otherwise not being careful at all. 

I know you don't mean it like that, but this comes across as very judgmental and incredibly privileged. Having kids in daycare does not equal "not being careful at all". Most folks don't have the option to work from home in flexible jobs that allow them to supervise their children while working.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I know you don't mean it like that, but this comes across as very judgmental and incredibly privileged. Having kids in daycare does not equal "not being careful at all". Most folks don't have the option to work from home in flexible jobs that allow them to supervise their children while working.

The people I was thinking of definitely have options. But you're right that I wouldn't judge people who had no choice. (Honestly, I don't even judge the people WITH the choice. Everyone is exhausted and I get it.) 

But even ignoring the issues of judging, I don't see how it's reasonable to ask us to keep masking when a kid is in daycare. We'll be vaccinated and the people we'll be seeing will have FAR more exposures from people who are not us. And we've sacrificed a lot this pandemic. 

So... if someone asks us to mask, we would of course be delighted to do it. But I don't think we're going to mask proactively because there are small children around somewhere. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[KSera]

20 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't see how it's reasonable to ask us to keep masking when a kid is in daycare.

Doesn’t New York have a mask mandate for day cares? 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

Doesn’t New York have a mask mandate for day cares? 

Sure, but not for the kids 😛 . You can't get toddlers to consistently mask. 

[regentrude]

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't see how it's reasonable to ask us to keep masking when a kid is in daycare. We'll be vaccinated and the people we'll be seeing will have FAR more exposures from people who are not us. And we've sacrificed a lot this pandemic. 

So... if someone asks us to mask, we would of course be delighted to do it. But I don't think we're going to mask proactively because there are small children around somewhere. 

I do not understand the logic. Just because a person has exposure through daycare, why wouldn't they want to minimize the remaining risk that is within their control?
I, for example, have a lot of exposure at work because I teach in person. So  my Covid risk budget is already maxed out and I do not want to add anything else - hence I continue to mask, and I only interact indoors with masked people. I cannot do anything about my job, but I can do something to reduce my risk in my private activities.
ETA: And, as I recently wrote about: it means I forego all kinds of indoor events because of that. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by regentrude

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

I do not understand the logic. Just because a person has exposure through daycare, why wouldn't they want to minimize the remaining risk that is within their control?
I, for example, have a lot of exposure at work because I teach in person. So  my Covid risk budget is already maxed out and I do not want to add anything else - hence I continue to mask, and I only interact indoors with masked people. I cannot do anything about my job, but I can do something to reduce my risk in my private activities.

If anyone asks us to, I'm sure we will. DH is also working in person at this point and is also otherwise trying to minimize risk. So I absolutely understand that. 

Maybe my point is that if someone is trying to minimize their risk, we're happy to help out, but most people we know seem to have stopped doing it 😕 . If the Delta wave hits here, then that may change. 

This is all very theoretical, anyway. I don't think I'll feel like cases are low enough to unmask until at least January, anyway, unless the Delta way by some miracle simply passes us by. 

[Not_a_Number]

I guess what I'm really saying is that I'd like for my kids to see their friends' faces sometime this winter, lol. Maybe the littlest kids will be vaccinated by then, anyway, and I'll have to stop worrying... but honestly, I'm not sure we'll EVER stop worrying. What if someone doesn't have a recent enough booster? What if there's a newborn in the family? What sacrifices do those possibilities require from us, especially when most people have stopped making any sacrifices at all? 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

32 minutes ago, KSera said:

No, I’m aware of other issues with his research, but I see zero relevance here. 

I see relevance not only with the science but, interestingly, some of the same people that pointed out Wakefield's deficits (and it's good that they did) are now ignoring the same issues with current PCR use.  As a society we should want to sort out what's really going on, not just searching for "messaging" that gets others to bend to our will.  

I happen to think that there is some level of spreading before people admit/fully realize they're sick.   It's a big problem though when faulty research is used as a justification to impose restrictions on people and that's why I take a hardline stance on it.   At the very least, the narratives spun with faulty research are fueling "otherizing" and other negative behavior and they're doing so because, "the science is settled."  Well,  maybe we'd all get along better and come up with more creative solutions that could balance all aspects of life, including the mental health of young people who are at little risk from the disease anyway, with ways to protect those at high risk if so many people weren't caught up in the "let's use the force of government" to make everyone else do what we want game (and it happens on both sides).  

I still hold firm that individuals who are at a high risk of Covid have options to protect themselves:  masks, like Kn95s, and vaccines.   

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

 It's a big problem though when faulty research is used as a justification to impose restrictions on people and that's why I take a hardline stance on it. 

But what would "good" research look like? 

[Spy Car]

1 hour ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

You do realize that the issue with "anti-vaxxer" Andrew Wakefield's research was the his use of PCR?  

 

What a load of malarkey.

Wakefield was guilty of financial improprieties, ethics violations, and deliberate medical fraud--for financial gain-- by misrepresenting scientific data.

Please stop spreading Covid disinformation on this forum.

Bill 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I guess what I'm really saying is that I'd like for my kids to see their friends' faces sometime this winter, lol. Maybe the littlest kids will be vaccinated by then, anyway, and I'll have to stop worrying... but honestly, I'm not sure we'll EVER stop worrying. What if someone doesn't have a recent enough booster? What if there's a newborn in the family? What sacrifices do those possibilities require from us, especially when most people have stopped making any sacrifices at all? 

Here's my rule of thumb:  If someone has a need to be/feel protected (like the event organizer I mentioned who had a transplant), then our family does what is requested and/or clarifies their needs or simply passes on the interaction.  

We do need to see human faces. 

Grocery stores, etc. are the wild west anyway.  I've always assumed I'm taking an illness risk going grocery shopping, at least during the months of the year that respiratory illnesses are going around.  There is always someone with a coughing, snotty, kid - and sometimes several adults.  People who really need protection need to apply what is available to protect themselves in those situations because taking care of oneself will always be the more reliable route.  

[SlowRiver]

23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I guess what I'm really saying is that I'd like for my kids to see their friends' faces sometime this winter, lol. Maybe the littlest kids will be vaccinated by then, anyway, and I'll have to stop worrying... but honestly, I'm not sure we'll EVER stop worrying. What if someone doesn't have a recent enough booster? What if there's a newborn in the family? What sacrifices do those possibilities require from us, especially when most people have stopped making any sacrifices at all? 

Covid in children is so much less of a risk than many other things though. If we spent our days making the same kinds of choices because of them all, we'd go mad. In my country, there has been one child death in the entire nation, even though in most places kids under about age 8 didn't mask. More than 10,000 a year die in car accidents. Which we take some precautions about, sure, but nothing remotely comparable in terms of risk/benefit, and nothing comparable in terms of the amount of anxiety inducing worry.

When people are treating their risk assessment so wildly it is not about taking sensible precautions.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

This is a good point. On the other hand, everyone I know with kids that little, no matter how cautious they were last year, has their kids in daycare. 

So... I can imagine being cautious with people who are being cautious themselves, but I'm not going to remain super careful with people who are otherwise not being careful at all. 

I was speaking more of public spaces, where you don't know how risky/careful people are being. Like, if I take my kid to get a haircut, I would really appreciate everyone masking until those who want to be vaccinated, like my kids, can be. That kind of thing. Even if my kid isn't in there when you are, she might be the next person in, etc. So, public spaces that children may be exposed in. 

Private homes are totally different - if you are unmasked with people who are also comfortable with it, and you are vaccinated, and you then mask in public areas my kids may be, I have no real issue with that. 

10 minutes ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

 

Grocery stores, etc. are the wild west anyway.  I've always assumed I'm taking an illness risk going grocery shopping, at least during the months of the year that respiratory illnesses are going around.  There is always someone with a coughing, snotty, kid - and sometimes several adults.  People who really need protection need to apply what is available to protect themselves in those situations because taking care of oneself will always be the more reliable route.  

Here is the other things, people don't always have better options, and sometimes need to use the grocery store even if not the best choice. Having those around them mask makes it safe for them, and is courteous, during a time of a pandemic. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

I was speaking more of public spaces, where you don't know how risky/careful people are being. Like, if I take my kid to get a haircut, I would really appreciate everyone masking until those who want to be vaccinated, like my kids, can be. That kind of thing. Even if my kid isn't in there when you are, she might be the next person in, etc. So, public spaces that children may be exposed in. 

I doubt we'll even go into those spaces, lol. And I suppose classes might require masks, anyway, so we might not have a choice. 

But I'd love to have some unmasked playdates 🙂 . 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

7 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

What a load of malarkey.

Wakefield was guilty of financial improprieties, ethics violations, and deliberate medical fraud--for financial gain-- by misrepresenting scientific data.

Please stop spreading Covid disinformation on this forum.

Bill 

It is entirely possible that both the expert who supplied the testimony that pointed out PCR problems  *and* Wakefield have at times acted improperly at times.   No need for the, "Oh ya, well look what he did." deflection technique.   I think that the PCR science was faulty in Wakefield's work and I think it's faulty now.  That's called consistency.  

Your use of language like "malarkey", and "disinformation", won't persuade me from examining what is out there to the best of my ability.   It's a very shallow attempt at influencing people through emotion.  Really bottom of the barrel type behavior.  I feel bad for the people who let you have any power over their views.  

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Covid in children is so much less of a risk than many other things though. If we spent our days making the same kinds of choices because of them all, we'd go mad. In my country, there has been one child death in the entire nation, even though in most places kids under about age 8 didn't mask. More than 10,000 a year die in car accidents. Which we take some precautions about, sure, but nothing remotely comparable in terms of risk/benefit, and nothing comparable in terms of the amount of anxiety inducing worry.

Here's the stat: 

In 2019, 608 child passengers age 12 and younger died in motor vehicle crashes and more than 91,000 were injured. Of the children 12 and younger who died in a crash (for whom restraint use was known), 38% were not buckled up.

That's for the US. I don't know the exact statistics for COVID pediatric deaths under 12... do you? 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Covid in children is so much less of a risk than many other things though. If we spent our days making the same kinds of choices because of them all, we'd go mad. In my country, there has been one child death in the entire nation, even though in most places kids under about age 8 didn't mask. More than 10,000 a year die in car accidents. Which we take some precautions about, sure, but nothing remotely comparable in terms of risk/benefit, and nothing comparable in terms of the amount of anxiety inducing worry.

When people are treating their risk assessment so wildly it is not about taking sensible precautions.

I'm personally also very worried about long-term damage. I'm not only worried about death. And how many kids have been hospitalized for COVID over the pandemic? 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'm personally also very worried about long-term damage. I'm not only worried about death. And how many kids have been hospitalized for COVID over the pandemic? 

or developed new onset type 1 diabetes, or celiac, or other autoimmune issues. 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, ChickaDeeDeeDee said:

It is entirely possible that both the expert who supplied the testimony that pointed out PCR problems  *and* Wakefield have at times acted improperly at times.   No need for the, "Oh ya, well look what he did." deflection technique.   I think that the PCR science was faulty in Wakefield's work and I think it's faulty now.  That's called consistency.  

Your use of language like "malarkey", and "disinformation", won't persuade me from examining what is out there to the best of my ability.   It's a very shallow attempt at influencing people through emotion.  Really bottom of the barrel type behavior.  I feel bad for the people who let you have any power over their views.  

Not a "deflection technique" (on my part anyway).

Wakefield's fraud had zero to do with PCR science and everything to do with his financial, ethical, and scientific improproties.

Yours is the bottom of the barrel type of behavior. You are spreading falsehoods and nonsense.

Bill

 

 

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Here is the other things, people don't always have better options, and sometimes need to use the grocery store even if not the best choice. Having those around them mask makes it safe for them, and is courteous, during a time of a pandemic. 

I might agree if there was really no cost to everyone that was asked to wear a mask.  I've suffered several anxiety attacks wearing a mask (that has a real, negative, health outcome to me).   It needs to always be my choice to put that mask on.