Omicron anecdata?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, wathe said:

I would argue that you're best off training your immune system via vaccination rather than by getting sick.

Except the data strongly suggests that natural immunity is more robust. Natural immunity plus vaccine, even better, but vaccines fade very quickly. 

I'm off for the night, I think. I'll catch up with you guys later. 

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Except the data strongly suggests that natural immunity is more robust. Natural immunity plus vaccine, even better, but vaccines fade very quickly. 

I'm off for the night, I think. I'll catch up with you guys later. 

https://caitlinrivers.substack.com/p/where-are-we-with-the-hygiene-hypothesis
 

When you have time, I finally found the link I was thinking of. It was posted further up thread so apologies if you’ve already read it. It challenged my thinking on this even if it didn’t completely change my mind.

[Mom_to3]

I just deleted my entire post....

To make a long story short - I am well aware of selection bias. There are also many people who should know statistics by training who published deeply flawed studies to make a point. And who do so repeatedly. The publication process is far from perfect. As such, I do not put too much emphasis on any one study (especially as  I often simply do not have enough time to study all of them carefully - I need to keep up with the literature in my own field of expertise).

What concerns me is the large number of studies on diverse parts of the body and immune system that appear to show effects of covid infection. I am not as qualified to evaluate these studies, and the terminology often goes above my head (especially as it related to immune function and different types of cells), but I find this very concerning.

About training the immune system via infection. This does not seem clear from my (non-expert) knowledge. Dengue fever I believe is a well known example where repeat infections are typically worse. In addition, there are plenty of other viruses with significant long-term issues - measles, Epstein Barr and MS, HPV, HIV, ... The signals are there that covid may be anything but mild beyond the acute phase, and before we know with more certainty, it would be wise to take simple precautions rather than let young people be reinfected multiple times a year.

We also are a rich enough country that we could have developed cheap and more sensitive at home testing, so that everyone could take a quick test every day before heading out to work/school. Just like brushing your teeth or washing your hands after using the restroom. Or that we could have get started with installing state of the art ventilation systems (my university claimed that they revamped the ventilation, but when you look into the details - which are not easy to find, at all - air exchange rates and use of outside air are absolutely terrible for most of the buildings, though supposedly they upgraded filters to Merv 13; no Hepa filters in the classrooms even though we are a university with a very large endowment).

[wathe]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Except the data strongly suggests that natural immunity is more robust. Natural immunity plus vaccine, even better, but vaccines fade very quickly. 

I'm off for the night, I think. I'll catch up with you guys later. 

Unless you are dead or damaged from the original infection.  Then the natural immunity is not so relevant.

[wathe]

3 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

I just deleted my entire post....

To make a long story short - I am well aware of selection bias. There are also many people who should know statistics by training who published deeply flawed studies to make a point. And who do so repeatedly. The publication process is far from perfect. As such, I do not put too much emphasis on any one study (especially as  I often simply do not have enough time to study all of them carefully - I need to keep up with the literature in my own field of expertise).

What concerns me is the large number of studies on diverse parts of the body and immune system that appear to show effects of covid infection. I am not as qualified to evaluate these studies, and the terminology often goes above my head (especially as it related to immune function and different types of cells), but I find this very concerning.

About training the immune system via infection. This does not seem clear from my (non-expert) knowledge. Dengue fever I believe is a well known example where repeat infections are typically worse. In addition, there are plenty of other viruses with significant long-term issues - measles, Epstein Barr and MS, HPV, HIV, ... The signals are there that covid may be anything but mild beyond the acute phase, and before we know with more certainty, it would be wise to take simple precautions rather than let young people be reinfected multiple times a year.

We also are a rich enough country that we could have developed cheap and more sensitive at home testing, so that everyone could take a quick test every day before heading out to work/school. Just like brushing your teeth or washing your hands after using the restroom. Or that we could have get started with installing state of the art ventilation systems (my university claimed that they revamped the ventilation, but when you look into the details - which are not easy to find, at all - air exchange rates and use of outside air are absolutely terrible for most of the buildings, though supposedly they upgraded filters to Merv 13; no Hepa filters in the classrooms even though we are a university with a very large endowment).

Agree, with all of it, especially the bolded.

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, wathe said:

Unless you are dead or damaged from the original infection.  Then the natural immunity is not so relevant.

Dead is not included in the statistics. But "damaged" is. When you study natural immunity, you just see rate of hospitalization (or whatever) after following the people who've been infected before. It's much lower. 

https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2022/06/qatar-omicron-wave-study-shows-slow-decline-of-natural-immunity-rapid-decline-of

[Not_a_Number]

You know, I have the strong sense that my expertise is not helpful in this thread. 

If anyone needs help interpreting a study, please tag me. Otherwise, I think I'm just going to stay out of here. It winds me up, and I'm not helping anyone understand anything, anyway. 

[wathe]

By damaged, I mean long-term sequelae or disability, not necessarily acute hospitalization.

Getting boosted however often it takes seems to me to be a more sensible strategy than risking bad outcomes with natural infection for the sake of more lasting immunity.

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by wathe

[wathe]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You know, I have the strong sense that my expertise is not helpful in this thread. 

If anyone needs help interpreting a study, please tag me. Otherwise, I think I'm just going to stay out of here. It winds me up, and I'm not helping anyone understand anything, anyway. 

I just feel a need to state:  I have a pretty good grasp of how to interpret medical literature, a good grasp of evidence-based medicine, a good grasp of clinical medicine, and of pathophysiology and natural history of viral illness.   You don't have a monopoly on understanding here.  I would like to think that we can disagree with each other without implying that the other doesn't understand anything.

Maybe that's not what you meant to imply, but that's how it's coming across to me.

[wathe]

I will add that I'm sure that I'm being influenced by my own baggage here:  Every working day absolutely slammed with sick kids with infectious respiratory illness, with emergency departments gridlocked (imagine if you will a 40-something bed emergency department with 42 admitted holds, 143 patients all at once, 85 of whom are waiting to see MD - actual stats from earlier this week), with Paeds ICU's at 120+% capacity, 14+ yo's being shipped to adult ICUs to make space (and the adult intensivists are losing their minds over this), paeds surgeries being cancelled or redirected to adult centres.

 I can't say that I feel that any of the very sick babies and toddlers that I am seeing and resuscitating (or their stressed-to-the-max parents), are benefitting much from their viral infections.

Edited November 12, 2022 by wathe

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess aside from Stats why do we expect reinfections to be less or more severe? How does that compare to other infections that we get on repeat? For example, flu. Does flu become less problematic the more times we catch it? I believe some infections do work that way (RSV?) but others it’s more to do with the specific strain or health status at the time. 

And (in addition to other things already stated), it's not just about whether each subsequent infection is more severe in itself, but if each infection carries a risk of harm, then multiple infections will carry an increased, additive risk. Perhaps the risk from the second infection taken alone could end up being lower, but the risk from the second infection added to the risk from the first infection is going to be higher than the risk from only one infection.

37 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Except the data strongly suggests that natural immunity is more robust. Natural immunity plus vaccine, even better, but vaccines fade very quickly.

Natural immunity comes with very real risk of harm.

17 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You know, I have the strong sense that my expertise is not helpful in this thread. 

If anyone needs help interpreting a study, please tag me. Otherwise, I think I'm just going to stay out of here. It winds me up, and I'm not helping anyone understand anything, anyway. 

I'd venture the thread might wind you up less and you might learn more from it if you sought to learn from it as much or more than you seek to offer expertise. I think a missing piece of context is that you were gone from all these discussions for a long time and a lot of research and news and experiences have been discussed during that time that you missed. Lots of people here have expertise and we can all learn from each other.

[Jean in Newcastle]

37 minutes ago, wathe said:

I just feel a need to state:  I have a pretty good grasp of how to interpret medical literature, a good grasp of evidence-based medicine, a good grasp of clinical medicine, and of pathophysiology and natural history of viral illness.   You don't have a monopoly on understanding here.  I would like to think that we can disagree with each other without implying that the other doesn't understand anything.

Maybe that's not what you meant to imply, but that's how it's coming across to me.

Yes, preaching to people with actual medical expertise seems a bit… myopic perhaps. My dh’s clinics were first on the scene with the first US Covid cases. They have lots and lots of data. It matches everything you have seen and reported on in your practice. 

[Not_a_Number]

Never mind.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

Never mind.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

Never mind.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

At the end of the day, what I’m seeing is that I have nothing to offer most of you. Most of you don’t want my interpretations.

That’s fine. That’s up to you. You get to decide what is and isn’t useful for you. And I correspondingly get to decide whether it’s helpful for me to keep providing my perspectives in this atmosphere.

Seriously, please tag me if my take on the data would be useful. But I’m sick of feeling like an old man yelling at a cloud and am going to otherwise step back.

I’d appreciate it if no one tried to engage me further. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Not_a_Number

[Matryoshka]

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221109/Long-term-effects-of-SARS-CoV-2-on-the-brain.aspx

[mommyoffive]

8 hours ago, wathe said:

I will add that I'm sure that I'm being influenced by my own baggage here:  Every working day absolutely slammed with sick kids with infectious respiratory illness, with emergency departments gridlocked (imagine if you will a 40-something bed emergency department with 42 admitted holds, 143 patients all at once, 85 of whom are waiting to see MD - actual stats from earlier this week), with Paeds ICU's at 120+% capacity, 14+ yo's being shipped to adult ICUs to make space (and the adult intensivists are losing their minds over this), paeds surgeries being cancelled or redirected to adult centres.

 I can't say that I feel that any of the very sick babies and toddlers that I am seeing and resuscitating (or their stressed-to-the-max parents), are benefitting much from their viral infections.

Sending you some hugs. Thank you for what you do.  Even if all of us had just had Covid and I didn't need to worry about that for 3 months or whatever timeline is used now, this keeps us all masking.  I know all the hospitals are full and my kids getting really sick and needing to be in the hospital right now is something I am trying to avoid.  

[Harriet Vane]

9 hours ago, wathe said:

I will add that I'm sure that I'm being influenced by my own baggage here:  Every working day absolutely slammed with sick kids with infectious respiratory illness, with emergency departments gridlocked (imagine if you will a 40-something bed emergency department with 42 admitted holds, 143 patients all at once, 85 of whom are waiting to see MD - actual stats from earlier this week), with Paeds ICU's at 120+% capacity, 14+ yo's being shipped to adult ICUs to make space (and the adult intensivists are losing their minds over this), paeds surgeries being cancelled or redirected to adult centres.

 I can't say that I feel that any of the very sick babies and toddlers that I am seeing and resuscitating (or their stressed-to-the-max parents), are benefitting much from their viral infections.

Wathe, your posts have been incredibly helpful to me. Thank you for sharing your perspective on all the confusing science and thank you for your kind work to help the sick and suffering. 

[Kassia]

10 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Wathe, your posts have been incredibly helpful to me. Thank you for sharing your perspective on all the confusing science and thank you for your kind work to help the sick and suffering. 

I second this.  Thank you @wathe!

[Mom_to3]

40 minutes ago, Kassia said:

I second this.  Thank you @wathe!

I third this. Thank you! I am sorry that your working days are so nightmarish right now and that we, collectively, are not doing anything to help (quite the opposite).

[mommyoffive]

[mommyoffive]

DNA is providing new clues to why COVID-19 hits people differently (sciencenews.org)

Genetic clues

But young and otherwise healthy people may get really sick, be hospitalized or even die from COVID-19 too. It’s hard to predict who might succumb, but researchers are searching for genetic clues.

Some studies have found that versions of genes inherited from Neandertals may protect against COVID-19, while other genetic heirlooms passed down from Neandertals can up the risk of severe disease (SN: 2/17/21; SN: 10/2/20). 

A massive international study examining DNA from more than 28,000 COVID-19 patients and almost 600,000 people who hadn’t been infected (to the best of their knowledge) confirmed that inheritance from Neandertals is involved in COVID-19 susceptibility.

The study also confirmed a previous finding that people with type O blood may have some protection against getting infected with the coronavirus (SN: 7/8/21). Exactly what accounts for the protection is still not known.

People with rare variants in a gene called toll-like receptor 7, or TLR7, are 5.3 times more likely to get severe COVID-19 than those who don’t have the variants, the team also reported November 3 in PLOS Genetics. Biologically, the link makes sense. TLR7’s protein is involved in signaling the immune system that a virus has invaded. Part of its duties include marshaling interferons, immune system chemicals that are some of the first responders to viral infections (SN: 8/6/20). Interferons warn cells to raise their antiviral defenses and help to kill infected cells. 

A gene called TYK2 is involved in producing some interferons. Genetic variants in that gene raise the risk of developing lupus, but may protect against coronavirus infection, researchers report in a separate study also published November 3 in PLOS Genetics. While riling up interferons may fend off the coronavirus, when there is no virus to combat, the immune system may damage the body with friendly fire, producing lupus or other autoimmune diseases. Such genetic trade-offs are common (SN: 10/19/22). 

[mommyoffive]

New Covid Booster Strengthens Immune Response Against Subvariants, Moderna Says (msn.com)

[mommyoffive]

For some COVID patients, 'Paxlovid rebound' has nothing to do with Paxlovid (msn.com)

[whitestavern]

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

New Covid Booster Strengthens Immune Response Against Subvariants, Moderna Says (msn.com)

“Moderna says” 🤣🤣 

[TCB]

2 hours ago, whitestavern said:

“Moderna says” 🤣🤣 

Well they also provided data, which I think was antibody levels in 500 people. We don’t know for sure what that means in real world scenarios, but not sure it deserves mocking. It’s a shame this whole disease seems to have devolved into taking sides. I’m hoping we get good information that we can base decisions on. Gotta keep an open mind for that information to be helpful though.

[Jean in Newcastle]

12 minutes ago, TCB said:

Well they also provided data, which I think was antibody levels in 500 people. We don’t know for sure what that means in real world scenarios, but not sure it deserves mocking. It’s a shame this whole disease seems to have devolved into taking sides. I’m hoping we get good information that we can base decisions on. Gotta keep an open mind for that information to be helpful though.

Especially since it's common and even required for pharmaceutical companies to do studies on the efficacy of their vaccines.  Who else do you expect to do it?  Toyota?  Obviously the fact that they are studying their own vaccine needs to be noted and taken into account but it's not some weird suspect thing. 

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

New Covid Booster Strengthens Immune Response Against Subvariants, Moderna Says (msn.com)

The discouraging stat in that article is that only 10% of Americans over the age of 5 have gotten the bivalent booster. I think a lot of people who already had it, especially if it was mild, either think they're bullet-proof now or "it's just a cold," so not worth trying to add any further protection, even though it's now clear that people can get reinfected multiple times.

According to the data, the bivalent booster increased antibody levels to BA4/5 even in people who had had prior infection (5x higher than in people who got the monovalent version), although not quite as high as in people who had not been infected (6x higher than monovalent). 

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

According to the data, the bivalent booster increased antibody levels to BA4/5 even in people who had had prior infection (5x higher than in people who got the monovalent version), although not quite as high as in people who had not been infected (6x higher than monovalent). 

This stood out to me as well, because the other recent study showing reduced effectiveness in those who have had omicron has been on my mind when family members ask my advice on when they should get boosted if they had omicron recently. I'd really like to see more data to see if that finding is replicated.

[Ausmumof3]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The discouraging stat in that article is that only 10% of Americans over the age of 5 have gotten the bivalent booster. I think a lot of people who already had it, especially if it was mild, either think they're bullet-proof now or "it's just a cold," so not worth trying to add any further protection, even though it's now clear that people can get reinfected multiple times.

According to the data, the bivalent booster increased antibody levels to BA4/5 even in people who had had prior infection (5x higher than in people who got the monovalent version), although not quite as high as in people who had not been infected (6x higher than monovalent). 

There’s probably some in the same category as my husband who plans to get it but needed to wait a certain amount of time after his last infection to maximise protection.

[catz]

3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There’s probably some in the same category as my husband who plans to get it but needed to wait a certain amount of time after his last infection to maximise protection.

Yes - I've delayed a little because my daughter had covid in the house (coincidentally symptoms started the day my husband got his bilavent vax).  Then I got the flu vaccine.  And now I realize my daughter and I hope to travel in Feb, so I may delay a little bit yet. Especially since we're home for thanksgiving.  

[mommyoffive]

Long COVID clinics are wrestling with how to treat their patients : NPR

[1234]

19 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There’s probably some in the same category as my husband who plans to get it but needed to wait a certain amount of time after his last infection to maximise protection.

Yes. We all had Covid for the first time in June and were advised to wait until September to get a booster. Then we all became sick with the worst illness (not Covid or the flu) we’ve ever had and it knocked all five of us down for about two months. We were just able to get our booster a few weeks ago.

We knew very few people that had Covid until this past summer and then it seemed like every one we knew had it. So, I assume lots were waiting until the fall or later to get the booster.

[mommyoffive]

Moderna's BA.4/BA.5 Targeting Bivalent Booster, mRNA-1273.222, Meets Primary Endpoint of Superiority Against Omicron Variants Compared to Booster Dose of mRNA-1273 in Phase 2/3 Clinical Trial (modernatx.com)

 

How do I know if we have RSV, the flu, or COVID-19? (substack.com)

 

How do I know if we have RSV, the flu, or COVID-19? — Dear Pandemic

Edited November 15, 2022 by mommyoffive

[mommyoffive]

State of Affairs: November 16, 2022 - by Katelyn Jetelina (substack.com)

[mommyoffive]

[mommyoffive]

What to Do for Unusual Covid Symptoms: Hairy Tongue, Hair Loss and More (msn.com)

[mommyoffive]

[mommyoffive]

Should you get the COVID booster? It could prevent millions of days missed in school and thousands of hospitalizations for kids (msn.com)

[mommyoffive]

Who is dying from COVID19? - by Katelyn Jetelina (substack.com)

[mlktwins]

Three of 4 us have the most current booster. The 4th one goes Monday. Both boys have travel swim meets coming up and I wanted them done at least 2 weeks before that. Last year, there was a Covid outbreak at this same travel team meet and quite a few were infected. Thankfully, my guy wasn't one of them.

Both boys had mild Covid this summer, so hopefully between that, and the booster, they will be good.

DH and I have been spared, for now, but we still mask indoors and don't eat in restaurants . 

 

[mommyoffive]

Will Covid Boosters Prevent Another Wave? Scientists Aren’t So Sure. (msn.com)

[Mom_to3]

Wasn't sure if I should create a separate thread for this - but if this study from China about outdoor transmission is true...wow!

https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/doi/10.46234/ccdcw2022.209

[popmom]

49 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

Wasn't sure if I should create a separate thread for this - but if this study from China about outdoor transmission is true...wow!

https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/doi/10.46234/ccdcw2022.209

48 out of over 20,000 people. 9 of those were close contacts. That means less than .2 percent of park visitors (deemed at risk) were infected. Is my math correct? I'm not a math person.

ETA: just reread. There were 13 people in the park population who were determined to have had close contact with the jogger in the park. So 20 out of the 20,496 caught it without being in close proximity to the jogger. Am I reading that right?

Seems to me that other variables should be considered. It would be interesting to know how many of the "at risk population"--the 20,496-- were masking. Wouldn't that be relevant?

Edited November 20, 2022 by popmom

[Wheres Toto]

Dh and I were planning to get our boosters the week before last, while I was off work.  Instead I was sick.  Not covid but I didn't want to get the booster while already feeling down.   I'm off again this coming week, but now dh is sick so it will probably be Christmas break before we're able to get it.  

We're waiting on the kids until ds is on a break from school.  

[KSera]

13 hours ago, Mom_to3 said:

Wasn't sure if I should create a separate thread for this - but if this study from China about outdoor transmission is true...wow!

https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/doi/10.46234/ccdcw2022.209

Wow. As over the top and frankly creepy as the level of surveillance Chinese citizens are under is, it provides some data like we just don’t have anywhere else. This is indeed concerning for all of us who always mask indoors, but usually do not outdoors. There was a recent thread here about meteorologist Cliff Mass having taken outdoor CO2 readings  and using the low concentration outdoors as proof that there’s no transmission risk outdoors and no reason to wear masks, and the situation in this study is the one that I was trying to explain in that thread really doesn’t have to do with what the outdoor CO2 readings are. If you just happen to breathe in the air an infected person just breathed out—like by passing right through their exhalation cloud—it doesn’t matter that in general the air has the same CO2 concentration it would if there were no people nearby  

I’m still very surprised though that that many people caught it in this scenario. I would be super interested to see some of the video footage to see how crowded the jogging path was. The majority of the people affected were deemed close contacts due to being within 1 m of the jogger, so that’s pretty close.

The other thing of note from the study that didn’t really get mentioned in the discussion is the fact that patient zero appears to have caught it from an airplane that had not been disinfected since carrying positive cases on it the day before (for anyone who hasn’t read through the actual study, they are sequencing each of these cases, so they are able to mostly tell who caught it where). It seems to me that would be a case of surface transmission.

Another curiosity I have is what type of mask the one person who caught it despite wearing a mask was wearing. If I had to hazard a guess, they would’ve been wearing a pleated procedure type mask, but obviously I have no idea.  I just can’t imagine that someone outdoors in an even decent fit respirator could catch it in this manner.

12 hours ago, popmom said:

48 out of over 20,000 people. 9 of those were close contacts. That means less than .2 percent of park visitors (deemed at risk) were infected. Is my math correct? I'm not a math person.

 

I think using the 256 close contact people as the denominator would make more sense. People who were on the other side of the park and the steamed at risk don’t really figure into the math I’d be doing. Like you, I would want to know how many of the 256 close contacts who didn’t get it were wearing masks versus not. Like you, I would want to know how many of the 256 close contacts who didn’t get it were wearing masks versus not. It does seem to me like it would be kind of luck of the draw whether people passing him happen to take a breath of air that he had just breathed out or not.

Really fascinating study. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[kokotg]

It does sound like a really crowded park. We'll mask outside if we're sitting still in a crowded place sometimes (outdoor concerts, etc), but it'd take a lot for me to be willing to go back to masking most of the time outside. My 9 year old did manage to catch some sort of non-covid virus outside from someone on his baseball team this past fall, which was not my favorite thing. At least we're pretty sure he did....a few other kids had similar symptoms the same week, and the only indoor group activities he had that week were at masked homeschool coop. I don't know what the latest is on how contagious covid vs an ordinary cold is, though. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

39 minutes ago, KSera said:

Wow. As over the top and frankly creepy as the level of surveillance Chinese citizens are under is, it provides some data like we just don’t have anywhere else. This is indeed concerning for all of us who always mask indoors, but usually do not outdoors. There was a recent thread here about meteorologist Cliff Mass having taken outdoor CO2 readings  and using the low concentration outdoors as proof that there’s no transmission risk outdoors and no reason to wear masks, and the situation in this study is the one that I was trying to explain in that thread really doesn’t have to do with what the outdoor CO2 readings are. If you just happen to breathe in the air an infected person just breathed out—like by passing right through their exhalation cloud—it doesn’t matter that in general the air has the same CO2 concentration it would if there were no people nearby  

I’m still very surprised though that that many people caught it in this scenario. I would be super interested to see some of the video footage to see how crowded the jogging path was. The majority of the people affected were deemed close contacts due to being within 1 m of the jogger, so that’s pretty close.

The other thing of note from the study that didn’t really get mentioned in the discussion is the fact that patient zero appears to have caught it from an airplane that had not been disinfected since carrying positive cases on it the day before (for anyone who hasn’t read through the actual study, they are sequencing each of these cases, so they are able to mostly tell who caught it where). It seems to me that would be a case of surface transmission.

Another curiosity I have is what type of mask the one person who caught it despite wearing a mask was wearing. If I had to hazard a guess, they would’ve been wearing a pleated procedure type mask, but obviously I have no idea.  I just can’t imagine that someone outdoors in an even decent fit respirator could catch it in this manner.

I think using the 256 close contact people as the denominator would make more sense. People who were on the other side of the park and the steamed at risk don’t really figure into the math I’d be doing. Like you, I would want to know how many of the 256 close contacts who didn’t get it were wearing masks versus not. Like you, I would want to know how many of the 256 close contacts who didn’t get it were wearing masks versus not. It does seem to me like it would be kind of luck of the draw whether people passing him happen to take a breath of air that he had just breathed out or not.

Really fascinating study. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Stock photo of crowds in China outdoors. 
 

[mommyoffive]

COVID-19 Raises Risk of Seizures, Epilepsy (webmd.com)

 

Post-COVID epilepsy rare but more common than after flu | CIDRAP (umn.edu)

The Pandemic is Dead, Long Live the Pandemic (substack.com)