Covid III: Delta Force

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

It is strange that not one person has responded to the question of whether Covid is spread through normal breathing of humid air.  That the breath contains microscopic droplets of water.  That the droplets are mostly one micron or smaller.  That Covid is easily transported in those droplets.  That Covid virus is 100 nanometers in size and safely embedded within the droplets.  That the sieve within the finest mask are NOT smaller than 17 microns.

According to Google:  The air we breathe in is 21% O2 and 79% N2, (neglecting humidity). ... In fact, exhaled air is completely saturated with water – it contains the maximum amount of moisture, and is therefore has a relative humidity of 100%.

The smallest size of a cell that can be seen with the unaided eye is or the differentiation capacity of the human eye is 100 microns. (see https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/the-smallest-size-of-a-cell-which-can-be-seen-with-unaided-eye-is-or/)

These are compelling reasons for us to reconsider the policies for the mask mandate.  People keep saying "follow the science" !  Well, let us find better alternatives to wearing masks.

Everyone wears diving equipment with an independent air supply. Or lockdowns.

It has been known that masks do not prevent Covid transmission forever. They do mitigate it. They are less effective at mitigating Omicron for several reasons. Arguing that we should dispense with masking because it is not working right and we should do something that is more effective at mitigating spread is a call for more lockdowns. I doubt that is the solution you want.

[longview]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is plain silly. Why not do all we can to avoid the teeny tiny droplets from getting up in the air and wafting in others faces?? My video that you mention often, shows how the mask stops the teeny microscopic droplets to not get up and away.

You are still struggling with comprehension.  Microscopic means invisible to the eye unless you use a microscope.  So your video is only able to show particles that are much larger than 100 microns.  If sneezing can produce a spray that is propelled through the mask but still be visible, then it must be because of:

• sudden buildup of moisture on the inner surface of the mask
• explosive increase in air pressure from the mouth
• this pressure will propel moisture on the inner surface to "squirt" through 17 micron sized openings
• some of the propellants emerging outside of the mask will coalesce super thin streams of liquid into larger and more visible globules of moisture as demonstrated by your video
• other propellants will not coalesce as much

Most of the propellants are much smaller and not visible to the camera.  So your video is NOT giving you a complete picture.  The mask is good for impeding the forward pressure but does nothing to prevent the powerful sideways escape of air around the edge of the mask!  My question is how do we account for vast majority of exhalations of super fine mists (respiratory particles of a few microns and smaller)?  Even with normal breathing, a huge percent of the ventilation will escape into the air surrounding us.  Therefore masks contribute NOTHING for public safety.

". . . not get up and away . . ." ?  You have it backwards.  Coughing spittles and sneezing mists will either drop promptly to the ground or slowly descend (if they are finer but still visible) downward.  But "microscopic" mists are more readily blended into the natural humidity of the air.  Therefore this mist is an ever present hazard to people passing through that area.  Others breathing that air will get infected in their lungs (even if they are wearing masks).

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And your link doesn't work.

You mean this one?   https://www.justfacts.com/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods

It still works.  Please take a peek.

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What is your motive to stop mask wearing, since they do indeed help and prevent the spread of covid.

It only helps with preventing gobs from landing on you.  The exhalations of super fine mists blended in humidity of the air (normal breathing of respiratory particles of a few microns and smaller) are many times more dangerous because the contaminated air can be inhaled by unsuspecting passerbys.

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Is it your freedom you're worried about or others freedom? 

True.  I want freedom BOTH for myself and for everybody else.  But that is a separate topic from this discussion about simple fundamentals of different sizes of elements in viruses, particles and mask sieves.

[mtomm]

On 2/5/2022 at 3:14 PM, longview said:

I agree!  However, as I indicated in my earlier posts, the greater danger is in the normal breathing that contain millions of one micron sized particles that very easily passes through even the highest quality masks.  The sneezing mists and the heavier coughing spittles do have more substantial weight and do quickly drop to the ground.

But the one micron sized particles from normal breathing do behave like humid air and they do float intermingled into the air for much longer.  @Tacenda 's video link provides a dramatic illustration of even the fine mists of sneezing do pass through masks even with some degree of mitigation.  But there is NO mitigation of normal breath that easily passes into the air around us, with or without masks.

I wasn't even referring to COVID, I was strictly talking about life in general.  Why bother covering your mouth ever when you sneeze or cough? Why is it good manners?
These are rhetorical questions only.    And I'll answer them myself. We do it because it there is at least SOME mitigation of spreading germs when we direct a cough or sneeze another direction or into an elbow. Does it stop EVERYTHING? No, and yet we still do it. 
Masks will not stop everything and no one has ever claimed that. Do they signal that we are trying our best to stop spreading it? Yes. 
I have yet to see a study that says masks are useless.  Everyone shows that some masking helps at least a little. 


 

Edited February 7, 2022 by mtomm

[ksfisher]

Vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection wanes quickly but is better maintained against severe disease, study finds

Date:

February 7, 2022

Source:

Umea University

Summary:

The vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection wanes within a couple of months, but at different speed according to vaccine type. However, protection against severe COVID-19 appears to be better maintained, according to a study by researchers in Sweden.

 

The vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection wanes within a couple of months, but at different speed according to vaccine type. However, protection against severe COVID-19 appears to be better maintained. This is shown in a nationwide, registry-based study performed by researchers at Umeå University, Sweden, that now is published in The Lancet.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207100117.htm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection wanes within a couple of months, but at different speed according to vaccine type. However, protection against severe COVID-19 appears to be better maintained.

So footholds for the virus are easy to get even with vaccines after a time, but a deeper invasion is much harder to be established.  The troops are lazy, not paying much attention, but snap to when the alarm goes off and come running fully armed….

[ksfisher]

22 hours ago, longview said:

You are still struggling with comprehension.  Microscopic means invisible to the eye unless you use a microscope.  So your video is only able to show particles that are much larger than 100 microns.  If sneezing can produce a spray that is propelled through the mask but still be visible, then it must be because of:

• sudden buildup of moisture on the inner surface of the mask
• explosive increase in air pressure from the mouth
• this pressure will propel moisture on the inner surface to "squirt" through 17 micron sized openings
• some of the propellants emerging outside of the mask will coalesce super thin streams of liquid into larger and more visible globules of moisture as demonstrated by your video
• other propellants will not coalesce as much

Most of the propellants are much smaller and not visible to the camera.  So your video is NOT giving you a complete picture.  The mask is good for impeding the forward pressure but does nothing to prevent the powerful sideways escape of air around the edge of the mask!  My question is how do we account for vast majority of exhalations of super fine mists (respiratory particles of a few microns and smaller)?  Even with normal breathing, a huge percent of the ventilation will escape into the air surrounding us.  Therefore masks contribute NOTHING for public safety.

". . . not get up and away . . ." ?  You have it backwards.  Coughing spittles and sneezing mists will either drop promptly to the ground or slowly descend (if they are finer but still visible) downward.  But "microscopic" mists are more readily blended into the natural humidity of the air.  Therefore this mist is an ever present hazard to people passing through that area.  Others breathing that air will get infected in their lungs (even if they are wearing masks).

You mean this one?   https://www.justfacts.com/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods

It still works.  Please take a peek.

It only helps with preventing gobs from landing on you.  The exhalations of super fine mists blended in humidity of the air (normal breathing of respiratory particles of a few microns and smaller) are many times more dangerous because the contaminated air can be inhaled by unsuspecting passerbys.

True.  I want freedom BOTH for myself and for everybody else.  But that is a separate topic from this discussion about simple fundamentals of different sizes of elements in viruses, particles and mask sieves.

So why do surgeons wear masks? 

[T-Shirt]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So why do surgeons wear masks? 

Here is an interesting study from before Covid, that sheds some light on this question:

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

Here are some quotes:

Quote

However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination

Quote

Despite clear evidence that facemasks act to protect the theatre staff from macroscopic facial contamination, there are studies to suggest that they fail to protect surgeons from potentially hazardous sub-micrometre contaminants. This corresponds roughly to the size range of infectious bacteria while viruses are even smaller. Therefore, the protection that masks confer in the form of macroscopic facial contamination may not necessarily extend towards any microscopic infectious agents present within that contamination.

Quote

 Facemasks do have a clear role in maintaining the social cleanliness of surgical staff, but evidence is lacking to suggest that they confer protection from infection either to patients or to the surgeons that wear them.

Quote

Given that there is no evidence that they cause any harm either, proponents would rather err on the side of caution and encourage their continued use, stressing that there is no room for complacency when it comes to ensuring patient safety.

Quote

Another unavoidable aspect of this debate is that of public perception. In the public psyche, facemasks have become so strongly associated with safe and proper surgical practice that their disposal could cause unnecessary patient distress.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by T-Shirt

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So why do surgeons wear masks? 

So they don’t sneeze into the patient’s colon.

[strappinglad]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So why do surgeons wear masks? 

So they can't be recognized in a line up ? 

[longview]

10 hours ago, mtomm said:

We do it because it there is at least SOME mitigation of spreading germs when we direct a cough or sneeze another direction or into an elbow. Does it stop EVERYTHING? No, and yet we still do it. 

I agree with most of your post.  Stopping the cough spittle and sneeze mist with masks is helpful and more sanitary.  However, that is not the source of the greatest danger.  The normal breath can contain super fine mist that easily blends with the natural humidity of the air.  This will result in dangerous air containing one micron sized fluid particles embedded with 100 nanometers sized Covid viruses.  It will remain suspended in the air for a good long time.  People will walk through that air and not suspect a thing.  Millions of the virus can be wafted out with every breath.  Masks are completely incapable of mitigating the free flowing air (both through the masks and sideways around the edges).  Please see my last post to Tacenda above.  Thanks.

Edited February 8, 2022 by longview

[bsjkki]

IMO, the vaxx mandate is pointless, does not follow the science and has created unneeded divisiveness. The CDC lost my trust when they refused to acknowledge natural immunity. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10499655/Antibodies-unjabbed-Covid-survivors-stronger-protection-two-doses-study-claims.html

Edited February 11, 2022 by bsjkki

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

IMO, the vaxx mandate is pointless, does not follow the science and has created unneeded divisiveness. The CDC lost my trust when they refused to acknowledge natural immunity. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10499655/Antibodies-unjabbed-Covid-survivors-stronger-protection-two-doses-study-claims.html

I for one did not want to volunteer to get Covid to see if my immunity was going to last longer than someone vaccinated.  Someone who actually got the mumps may have had longer immunity than someone who was vaccinated.  They are now sterile, but hey, their immunity lasted longer. 

[bsjkki]

Just now, mtomm said:

I for one did not want to volunteer to get Covid to see if my immunity was going to last longer than someone vaccinated.  Someone who actually got the mumps may have had longer immunity than someone who was vaccinated.  They are now sterile, but hey, their immunity lasted longer. 

Vaxx mandates bad. Vaxx good. My post had nothing to do with whether you got the vaxx or not. I got the vax. I got boosted. I think the mandates were not scientific and were counter productive. (Of course, this is all just my opinion.)

[bsjkki]

More truth telling at the Washington Post.

 

[mtomm]

25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Vaxx mandates bad. Vaxx good. My post had nothing to do with whether you got the vaxx or not. I got the vax. I got boosted. I think the mandates were not scientific and were counter productive. (Of course, this is all just my opinion.)

Any public health or medical person that isn't a grifter would never agree that getting a disease is preferable to getting a vax. So no, mandates are not bad. Mandates save lives because getting vaccinated is life saving. It is literally the reason we bother developing vaccines.  And even if a mask doesn't stop the virus 100% does not make a mask useless.  

 
 

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Any public health or medical person that isn't a grifter would never agree that getting a disease is preferable to getting a vax.

Not my argument.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Vaxx mandates bad. Vaxx good. My post had nothing to do with whether you got the vaxx or not. I got the vax. I got boosted. I think the mandates were not scientific and were counter productive. (Of course, this is all just my opinion.)

How expensive are antibody tests?  
 

Would you be okay with requiring a test to confirm someone had Covid to opt out of a vaccine mandate?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

Any public health or medical person that isn't a grifter would never agree that getting a disease is preferable to getting a vax. So no, mandates are not bad. Mandates save lives because getting vaccinated is life saving. It is literally the reason we bother developing vaccines.  And even if a mask doesn't stop the virus 100% does not make a mask useless.  

 
 

We had plenty of people getting Covid before the vac was available.  I think bsjkki is simply saying if the purpose of the mandate is to ensure immunity, why not accept immunity by infection? (Separate from the argument of the risks of infection given immunity doesn’t change whether they got the disease because they refused to get a vac or because they didn’t get a chance to get vac before getting it).  She is not saying people should get a pass because they want to wait and get the infection instead of a vac either.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Calm

[mtomm]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

We had plenty of people getting Covid before the vac was available.  I think bsjkki is simply saying if the purpose of the mandate is to ensure immunity, why not accept immunity by infection? (Separate from the argument of the risks of infection given immunity doesn’t change whether they got the disease because they refused to get a vac or because they didn’t get a chance to get vac before getting it). 

How many people who had Covid have proof of such? Three people in my household had Covid and only one has documentation.  Since proof of prior infection (or antibodies) is much more difficult at this point  to prove then requiring vaccination removes that hurdle. 

It is also easy to say mandates were unnecessary now that we are two years in and 1 year in after the vaccinations became available when this info is just now becoming available. 

If in the future accepting a positive Covid test fulfills a mandate I'm good with that. The science will be evolving for awhile and so our thinking about how to deal with it should too. 

The CDC will keep updating these interim guidelines. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

Edited February 12, 2022 by mtomm

[bsjkki]

I got the booster 4 months ago. Glad I had it through delta but I am not getting another shot heading into spring/summer. The Israeli studies show minimal help with the 4th dose  and there are legitimate concerns by doctors that repeated shots could have negative effects on the immune system. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 and there are legitimate concerns by doctors that repeated shots could have negative effects on the immune system. 

There is a theory that this might happen. No evidence for it.

The more likely problem is social problem of expecting people to get a shot every four months. In any case it looks like governments have all thrown their hands up and surrendered. So it will be a rough couple of years until this thing becomes endemic or (hopefully) we develop a more long lasting vaccine.

It is also important to note that while protection wanes after four months that means it begins to diminish and not that the protection is gone. There is also no real indication that it is a steady decline and eventually the protection stops.

Edited February 12, 2022 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

A link that is not behind a paywall. Did Mask Mandates Work? The Data Is In ... And the Answer Is 'No' - Bloomberg

[bsjkki]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is a theory that this might happen. No evidence for it.

Hard to have evidence before we do it. My quote was 'legitimate doctors have concerns.' 

COVID booster shots: Do boosters hurt your immune system? - Deseret News

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The more likely problem is social problem of expecting people to get a shot every four months.

Any evidence this is why they are not moving forward with universal 4th boosters?

[bsjkki]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is also important to note that while protection wanes after four months that means it begins to diminish and not that the protection is gone.

It begins allowing symptomatic infection at 10 weeks and protection continues to decline from there. Booster Protection Wanes Against Omicron Within 10 Weeks, Data Suggests - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Booster effectiveness wanes after 4 months, but showed sturdy protection against hospitalization, CDC study shows (yahoo.com)

The timing of boosters is important as we move forward. IMO, we had a higher death toll from Delta because the vaccine effectiveness wanes and we did not get boosters to the elderly quick enough. We also didn't know then what we know now. 

If you're at high risk boosters should be taken. Timing is important. If you are high risk and get a breakthrough infection, please contact your doctor. There are effective therapies that can be taken in the first 10 days. Waiting to see how you do is not a smart way to go here. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by bsjkki

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Hard to have evidence before we do it. My quote was 'legitimate doctors have concerns.' 

COVID booster shots: Do boosters hurt your immune system? - Deseret News

 

Fuller quote than Bloomberg, adding important context IMO:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-drug-regulator-says-more-data-needed-impact-omicron-vaccines-2022-01-11/

Quote

The European Union's drug regulator on Tuesday expressed doubts about the need for a fourth booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine and said there is currently no data to support this approach as it seeks more data on the fast-spreading Omicron variant.

"While use of additional boosters can be part of contingency plans, repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy," the European Medicines Agency's Head of Vaccines Strategy, Marco Cavaleri, told a media briefing.

The EMA official raised concerns that a strategy of giving boosters every four months hypothetically poses the risk of overloading people's immune systems and leading to fatigue in the population.

Cavaleri also said more data on the impact of the new variant on vaccines and a better understanding of the evolution of the current wave were needed to decide whether an Omicron-specific vaccine was needed.

I am wondering if there is data that supports the hypothesis of immune compromising.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Calm