Jump to content

Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

What gives me comfort is that despite imperfect compliance in the lay population, despite that a large chunk of the population refuses to abide, despite that those who try are imperfect, despite the use of some less-effective (but better than zero) fabrics, STONG evidence suggests that masks still work to reduce the burden of disease in population studies.  We do have study upon study, I have posted like 7 studies showing that mandates work.

What I find very interesting is that those who have been antagonistic of masks and mandates from the very beginning are now hyper critical of those who wear imperfect masks, and criticize inconsistently executed mask mandates.  It is like you are all me on steroids, and it is kind of freaking me out!  And yet you all hold your tongue to those who deny that masks even work (you wouldn't want to offend your allies in your party who have the same goal in mind of humiliating the leading party, but from a different angle), and rip into those who counter with "yes they do" claiming that we are causing more harm than good. 

It comes off as political posturing.  It is just trying to get an edge on the opposition and criticize their efforts.   This is done by either 1) refuting that masks and vaccines even work - bringing into question the efforts of the leading party, or 2) becoming hypervigilant and criticizing the imperfect mandates - bringing into question the efforts of the leading party.  Same mission - different approach.    It is one extreme or the other. 

Pogi, that is just weird. It usually doesn't help to categorize people, it is better to confront what they say. I certainly wouldn't consider you a right wing nut because you advocate for masks and vaccines. Why you consider me a political opponent because I do the same is rather mystifying. Why in the world are you demonizing anyone who advocates for effective masks?? (Throwing vaccines in as if I'm anti-vaccine is kind of dirty pool, actually.  Tsk.)

I came into this thread late. I'm not going to read all of it so I don't understand who I am supposed to be criticizing. I haven't seen any anti-masker posts (although your definition of anti-masks seems to be anyone who doesn't support leaky cloth masks over effective masks.)

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

First Smac, we can do without the derogatory articles. 

"Derogatory?"

Also, I thought this thread was about COVID "and other touchy subjects."  If you don't want to read the article, don't.  If you don't agree with the article, fine.

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Second, what is "irrefutable" about this? 

Just because I post an article does not equate to me agreeing with the article, or with every jot and tittle of it.

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one is or has ever suggested that natural infection doesn't play a role in herd immunity.  Strawman.  What is irrefutable is the fact that vaccinations are always preferred over natural infection - that is kind of the point of them, to keep people from getting seriously sick.  Lets not uphold natural immunity as the gold standard and start having Covid parties, much like we had pox parties when we were younger before the vaccine came out. 

It seems that there is some disagreement about the parameters regarding whether "vaccinations are always preferred over natural infection."  See, e.g., this article published by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (bolded and underlined emphasis added) :

Quote

Is natural infection better than immunization?

It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses. However, the difference between vaccination and natural infection is the price paid for immunity:

  • The price paid for immunity after natural infection might be pneumonia from chickenpox, intellectual disability from Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumonia from pneumococcus, birth defects from rubella, liver cancer from hepatitis B virus, or death from measles.
  • Immunization with vaccines, like natural infections, typically induces long-lived immunity. But unlike natural infection, immunization does not extract such a high price for immunity; that is, immunization does not cause pneumonia, intellectual disability, birth defects, cancer or death.

If you could see the world from the perspective of your immune system, you would realize that where the virus or bacteria comes from is irrelevant. Your immune system “sees” something that is foreign, attacks it, disables it and then adds information to the memory bank, so your body can react more quickly the next time that same foreign invader arrives.

The differences between a vaccine and getting the disease naturally are the dose and the known time of exposure:

  • Dose — When someone is exposed to viruses or bacteria naturally, the dose is often larger, so the immune response that develops will typically be greater — as will the symptoms. However, when scientists are designing vaccines, they determine the smallest amount of virus or bacteria needed to generate a protective immunologic response. In this situation, more is not necessarily better.
  • Time of exposure — Most of the time, we do not know when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria; however, when we get a vaccine, we know about the exposure. In essence, we are controlling exposure to the viruses or bacteria that the vaccines protect against because we know when and where they occur. In contrast, and more typical of the norm, we don’t know what viruses or bacteria we are exposed to from the trip to get the vaccine — the door knob, the office, the books in the waiting room, or the toddler at the restaurant we go to after the office visit. Luckily, most of these exposures do not result in infections that our immune system is unable to control.

Of interest, a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection:

  • Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — The high purity of the specific protein in the vaccine leads to a better immune response than natural infection.
  • Tetanus vaccine — The toxin made by tetanus is so potent that the amount that causes disease is actually lower than the amount that induces a long-lasting immune response. This is why people with tetanus disease are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine — Children less than 2 years old do not typically make a good response to the complex sugar coating (polysaccharide) on the surface of Hib that causes disease; however, the vaccine links this polysaccharide to a helper protein that creates a better immune response than would occur naturally. Therefore, children less than 2 years old who get Hib are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Pneumococcal vaccine — This vaccine works the same way as the Hib vaccine to create a better immune response than natural infection.

So, in summary, vaccines afford us protection with lesser quantities of virus or bacteria and the control of scheduling the exposure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-natural-immunity.htmlFrom the New York Times:

Quote

Which produces a stronger immune response: a natural infection or a vaccine?

The short answer: We don’t know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said.

From Healthgrades.com:

Quote

Some people think that natural immunity—developed after infection—is preferable to vaccine-acquired immunity. Both types of immunity (natural and acquired) have pros and cons. Learn more about natural vs. acquired immunity, including what’s known about natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity for COVID-19.
...

Researchers are still learning about natural and vaccine-induced immunity for COVID-19. At present, healthcare providers believe that both COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccination produce immunity that likely lasts at least eight months. This immunity is not complete; it’s possible to contract COVID-19 after COVID-19 vaccination or an earlier bout of infection, though these cases are not usually severe.

Some evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination after infection can “sharpen immunity.” Vaccination after COVID-19 recovery increases antibody production and reduces the frequency of reinfection, according to several studies.
...
In most cases, healthcare experts recommend vaccination over natural infection, when available. If you have questions about natural and acquired immunity, talk to your healthcare provider.

From this 2018 article:

Quote

In some disease systems, the process of waning immunity can be subtle, involving a complex relationship between the duration of immunity—acquired either through natural infection or vaccination—and subsequent boosting of immunity through asymptomatic re-exposure. We present and analyse a model of infectious disease transmission where primary and secondary infections are distinguished to examine the interplay between infection and immunity. Additionally we allow the duration of infection-acquired immunity to differ from that of vaccine-acquired immunity to explore the impact on long-term disease patterns and prevalence of infection in the presence of immune boosting.

Our model demonstrates that vaccination may induce cyclic behaviour, and the ability of vaccinations to reduce primary infections may not lead to decreased transmission. Where the boosting of vaccine-acquired immunity delays a primary infection, the driver of transmission largely remains primary infections. In contrast, if the immune boosting bypasses a primary infection, secondary infections become the main driver of transmission under a sufficiently long duration of immunity.

Our results show that the epidemiological patterns of an infectious disease may change considerably when the duration of vaccine-acquired immunity differs from that of infection-acquired immunity. Our study highlights that for any particular disease and associated vaccine, a detailed understanding of the waning and boosting of immunity and how the duration of protection is influenced by infection prevalence are important as we seek to optimise vaccination strategies.

From this PBS article:

Quote

After a SARS-CoV-2 infection, a person’s antibody and T cell responses may be strong enough to provide protection against reinfection. Research shows that 91% of people who develop antibodies against the coronavirus are unlikely to be infected again for six months, even after a mild infection. People who had no symptoms during the infection are also likely to develop immunity, though they tend to make fewer antibodies than those who felt ill. So for some people, natural immunity may be strong and long-lasting.
...
COVID–19 vaccines generate both 
antibody and T cell responses – but this is much stronger and more consistent than immunity from natural infection.
...
The COVID–19 vaccines aren’t perfect, but they produce strong antibody and T cell responses that offer a safer and more reliable means of protection than natural immunity.
...
Natural immunity from infection is simply far too unreliable in the face of such a devastating virus. Current COVID-19 vaccines offer incredibly strong, consistent protection to the great majority of people. So, for anyone eligible, even those who have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccines offer immense benefits.

This opinion piece in U.S. News (emphases added) :

Quote

Should all Americans be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

No. As a physician with a lot of experience dealing with patients who don't follow what we ask them to do, I believe you win more bees with honey than fire.

The vaccines are so good at protecting against death from COVID-19 that those who are immune can feel good about living life without having to worry about becoming severely ill. Vaccines downgrade the infection to a mild seasonal virus – one we must learn to live with for years to come.

Those who choose not to get vaccinated are making a poor health decision at their own individual risk. They pose no public health threat to those already immune. Would we be so stern toward people making similar or worse health choices to smoke, drink alcohol or not wear a helmet when riding a bike? Over 85,000 Americans die annually from alcohol, yet we don't have the same public health fervor or requirements to save those lives. Let's encourage vaccination rather than activate the personal liberty culture wars that result in people becoming more entrenched in their opposition.

...

Also: Some people already have 'natural immunity' – that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. During every month of this pandemic, I've had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I've been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that's because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine. The power of natural immunity was recently affirmed in an Israeli study, which found a 6.7 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity vs. those with vaccinated immunity.

 

Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it's a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.

...

Now, if someone does not have natural immunity from prior infection, then they should immediately go out and get the vaccine. I'm pro-vaccine. But the issue of the appropriate clinical indication of the vaccine is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, as we frequently see in American culture and politics.

 

I'm perplexed at the vitriol directed at folks who are reluctant to get vaccinated. For some, the biggest driver of their hesitancy is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has failed to issue the long-overdue full approval of the COVID-19 vaccines due to stability testing which has nothing to do with safety.

On balance, I am persuaded by the recommendations to get vaccinated.  But I too am "perplexed at teh vitriol directed at folks who are reluctant to get vaccinated."

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is dangerous garbage upselling natural immunity as somehow preferred to vaccination, as if it is better.

Again, from the last article quoted above: "The power of natural immunity was recently affirmed in an Israeli study, which found a 6.7 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity vs. those with vaccinated immunity."

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

The goal is NOT immunity by any means possible.  The goal is to reduce the burden of disease and suffering and hospital overwhelm, while reaching herd immunity. 

Again, who is refuting this???  He is setting up a strawman, pretending like this is some big secret the government is trying to hide. 

I guess he forgot about the Spanish flu in the 20th century.  Yes, they too were running around with their hair on fire.  Yes, masks were just as hotly debated back then too.  No, a vaccine did not exist and the only preventative measure was masking/distancing/hygiene/shutdowns (which all happened).  To downplay vaccines in light of natural immunity would have been seen as immoral during the Spanish flu.  Public health would have given anything to have a vaccine for the Spanish flu like we have for Covid today.  Nothing has changed.  Public health is not corrupted as he portrays. 

Pump the brakes, bro.  The anger you are exhibiting is neither helpful nor persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just because I post an article does not equate to me agreeing with the article, or with every jot and tittle of it.

If you could ever highlight which were jots and which were tittles, it would answer some lingering questions I have.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Derogatory?"

Also, I thought this thread was about COVID "and other touchy subjects."  If you don't want to read the article, don't.  If you don't agree with the article, fine.

Just because I post an article does not equate to me agreeing with the article, or with every jot and tittle of it.

It seems that there is some disagreement about the parameters regarding whether "vaccinations are always preferred over natural infection."  See, e.g., this article published by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (bolded and underlined emphasis added) :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-natural-immunity.htmlFrom the New York Times:

From Healthgrades.com:

From this 2018 article:

From this PBS article:

This opinion piece in U.S. News (emphases added) :

On balance, I am persuaded by the recommendations to get vaccinated.  But I too am "perplexed at teh vitriol directed at folks who are reluctant to get vaccinated."

Again, from the last article quoted above: "The power of natural immunity was recently affirmed in an Israeli study, which found a 6.7 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity vs. those with vaccinated immunity."

Pump the brakes, bro.  The anger you are exhibiting is neither helpful nor persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

As someone who had chicken pox, measles and mumps, I need better explanations why Covid reacts any differently to natural immunity. Not that I want to find out. But this strikes me as another common sense thing given our experience with other diseases. 

I am more nervous about getting a vaccine booster than the first time around, but I will because I have to get on planes now.   

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, that is just weird. It usually doesn't help to categorize people, it is better to confront what they say. I certainly wouldn't consider you a right wing nut because you advocate for masks and vaccines. Why you consider me a political opponent because I do the same is rather mystifying. Why in the world are you demonizing anyone who advocates for effective masks?? (Throwing vaccines in as if I'm anti-vaccine is kind of dirty pool, actually.  Tsk.)

I came into this thread late. I'm not going to read all of it so I don't understand who I am supposed to be criticizing. I haven't seen any anti-masker posts (although your definition of anti-masks seems to be anyone who doesn't support leaky cloth masks over effective masks.)

Juliann, a lot of what I am saying is overflow from my conversation with Bernard yesterday.  It feels like every time I try to convince someone that masks work, this is where you or bernard join in the conversation against me, instead of opposing the guy claiming that masks don't work...at all, on any level, to reduce transmission.     I applaud your efforts to improve mask use.  I don't understand the antagonism against my efforts to educate someone that masks work.  The message I hear is that "my efforts are causing more harm than good".  It always seems to turn into a political criticism of imperfect efforts with you two, and smac, instead of a constructive effort to improve mask use.   I am perplexed that someone who feels so strongly about wearing masks and wearing them properly would come after me instead of the guy claiming that they don't work.   It sounds like you missed that part of the conversation, but that is precisely where Bernard came in and started engaging me in apparent defense of Mr. Anderson - with the bizarre twist that he is apparently even more extreme than me on masks.  I don't ever see you two opposing or criticizing republican efforts which are WAY more laxed on masks than any of us here. 

I hope that it is just a misunderstanding and my perception is wrong.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Derogatory?"

Mocking Fauci's "godlike status", and juxtaposing that with the claim that they were smarter in public health 50 years ago.  "Complicit lemmings".  "This is what one would call immunology 101".   "I agreed with Mr. Tucker‘s contention (and with that of every other thinking human being up until about five minutes ago)..." and other such derogatory language.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Just because I post an article does not equate to me agreeing with the article, or with every jot and tittle of it.

Yes, that seems to be your modus operandi.  You copy and paste very specific quotes from a highly political article and then use plausible deniability that you are trying to say something about it when confronted about the data you posted. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It seems that there is some disagreement about the parameters regarding whether "vaccinations are always preferred over natural infection."  See, e.g., this article published by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (bolded and underlined emphasis added) :

Yes, they are always preferred.  Better immunity, doesn't mean preferred.  One prevents infection, the other requires it.  Seems pretty obvious.  I would say that this is public health 101...but that would be derogatory.  Vaccination is still recommended even if you have natural immunity as it can reduce chance of reinfection by 2.5 times.   The only people who should not be vaccinated are those who have a medical contraindication.  But, we do not wish natural immunity on them. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Yes, have I not made that really, really clear?  Including that I use a kn95 mask myself? 

So sorry.  I was thinking you were anti mask . I was also thinking Bernard was anti mask.  
Just getting my cast of characters straight.  

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, juliann said:

As someone who had chicken pox, measles and mumps, I need better explanations why Covid reacts any differently to natural immunity. Not that I want to find out. But this strikes me as another common sense thing given our experience with other diseases. 

 

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The vaccines will not produce herd immunity.

Agreed, and I've thought this from the beginning. I think that places with high numbers of natural immunity are going to fare better in the long run, in the big picture, and I wonder what will happen when the "hermit nations" (New Zealand and Australia) finally do return to normal life --- they have low vaccination numbers, and have purposely kept themselves hermetically sealed off (so, even less natural immunity). 

I also agree that the role of natural immunity in reaching herd immunity has been purposely de-emphasized in favor of a full-court press on vaccination only. For something that, despite the media emphasis and propaganda, still isn't a problem for well over 90% of those who get it (neither acute short-term or "long Covid" problems). Yes, it can be very bad for some people, but it isn't at all for overwhelmingly most. 

52 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am more nervous about getting a vaccine booster than the first time around, but I will because I have to get on planes now.   

My parents received both Pfizer shots, but have said they aren't getting any boosters. I think this is a much more common sentiment among people than many people realize. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

I do. Do you?  How is that response any different than those who claim that unvaccinated people are only hurting themselves? (hint: it's not)

 

Now you are sounding like an anti-masker if you think advocating for the best masks available, that actually can prevent transmission, is a "strawman." 

Do sound like and anti masker?  Well I am not.  Look any mask is better than no mask at all. Higher quality masks are even better. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The vaccines will not produce herd immunity.

Not true. 
 

Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.Dec 31, 2020

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail. 

This is from the WHO website in direct response to a question regarding Covid-19. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

Just because I post an article does not equate to me agreeing with the article, or with every jot and tittle of it.

Yes, that seems to be your modum operandi. 

On a "clearing house"-type thread?  Yes.  

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

You copy and paste very specific quotes from a highly political article and then use plausible deniability when confronted about the data you posted.  It gets annoying.

As does your board nannying.

From the OP (by Calm): 

Quote

Iow, this thread is for the impulses, rants, and hot topics I keep asking not to be posted.  I am not putting any limits on it save keep to board rules, so Nemesis might still be banning if you risk political commentary or personal attacks.

I figure with surges and school starting people need to vent and it will take over the other thread eventually…that makes too much work for Nemesis.  Do try to be kind or at least civil.  If not, you have to be clever.  Boring, judgmental comments…do we ever need more of those?

Again, I'm on board with the general principle of vaccinations.  But the OP invited "touchy subjects." 

39 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

It seems that there is some disagreement about the parameters regarding whether "vaccinations are always preferred over natural infection."  See, e.g., this article published by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (bolded and underlined emphasis added) :

Yes, they are always preferred.  Better immunity, doesn't mean preferred.  One prevents infection, the other requires it.  Seems pretty obvious. 

Actually, vaccines reduce the risk and severity of infection.  "Prevents" seems a bit off.

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would say that this is public health 101...but that would be derogatory. 

I'm rather glad I'm already on board with getting vaccinated.  Rhetoric like yours doesn't persuade.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

As someone who had chicken pox, measles and mumps, I need better explanations why Covid reacts any differently to natural immunity.

Every virus and bacterial infection gives varying degrees of natural immunity.  Some are better than others.  Tetanus, HPV, pneumococcal, and Hib, for example all offer better protection from vaccine than from natural infection.  HPV has really terrible natural immunity, actually.  

1 hour ago, juliann said:

But this strikes me as another common sense thing given our experience with other diseases. 

Immunology is actually quite a bit more complex than that.  It is not something that we could have, or would have attempted to predict 50 years ago. It is not as black and white as this article makes it seem.  Either way, even though measles has stronger and better natural immunity than we get from the vaccine, we still recommend the vaccine for everyone.  Why should this be different?

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As I just noted any mask is better than no mask.  

Before the pandemic that was also true…

Without specifics, that’s just absurd and not a valuable way of making risk assessments.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't understand the antagonism against my efforts to educate someone that masks work. 

My take: Your comments in this thread sometimes come across as sneering and condescending and angry.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The message I hear is that "my efforts are causing more harm than good". 

Because your posts come across and angry and condescending, rather than attempting to persuade.

And again: You don't need to persuade me.  I am already on board with broad guidelines pertaining to masks, social distancing, vaccinations, etc.  I also have questions about the real-world ramifications of these measures, and about the legal and civil liberties considerations, and some of the assumptions in play, and the inconsistencies in guidance meted out by governmental and medical authorities, and medical information that may contravene the "common sense" and "consensus" approach to the pandemic, and so on.

You address the substance of these things, but usually add a heaping pile of scorn and condescension in the process.  That doesn't help.  It doesn't persuade. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It always seems to turn into a political criticism of imperfect efforts with you two, and smac, instead of a constructive effort to improve mask use.

Meh.  The pandemic and vaccination efforts have been heavily politicized.  That's just a part of the equation.  

The CDC and Dr. Fauci have been inconsistent in their advice.  That's part of the equation.

Politicians and government bureaucrats from all over are taking a "Do as I say not as I do" approach to masking, social distancing, etc.  That's part of the equation.

And on and on and on.  There are ample grounds for continuing reasoned discussion and debate.  Your approach, though, comes across more like a "Just quit asking questions, shut up and do what you're told, prole" type of posture.  That doesn't work for me.  And it certainly doesn't persuade.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Not true. 
 

Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.Dec 31, 2020

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail. 

This is from the WHO website in direct response to a question regarding Covid-19. 

Not true. This vaccine is too leaky to produce herd immunity. Vaccinated people can still become infected and spread the virus. It does absolutely reduce hospitalizations and death. In October of 2020, they were hoping the vaccine would produce herd immunity, but in real life, this has proven to be not the case. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808

image.thumb.png.db72f6c2bec34b34f0a1f17bf1987999.png

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As I just noted any mask is better than no mask.  

No it is not.

Exhale valve masks are essentially useless.  Fake masks create a false sense of security - especially fake mask that claim a degree of efficacy.
 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Not true. This vaccine is too leaky to produce herd immunity. Vaccinated people can still become infected and spread the virus. It does absolutely reduce hospitalizations and death. In October of 2020, they were hoping the vaccine would produce herd immunity, but in real life, this has proven to be not the case. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808

image.thumb.png.db72f6c2bec34b34f0a1f17bf1987999.png

Your reading comprehension needs work. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This vaccine is too leaky to produce herd immunity.

Which part of the doc image you posted supports your assertion that vaccines themselves are incapable of leading to herd immunity?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I have never hidden my opinion that American leaders starting from the very top majorly screwed up with the pandemic.  At times it came across as they couldn’t do worse if they tried.

Thanks. It appears we are in cahoots on that.

Do you also agree that they have created confusion by giving out inconsistent  messages and not modeling what they expect of their constituents?

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The CDC and Dr. Fauci have been inconsistent in their advice.  That's part of the equation.

Things change as there was more info. This is after all a novel virus. Modifying advice as knowledge is accumulated does not equal inconsistancy.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, juliann said:

What I find very interesting is that those who have been antagonistic of masks and mandates from the very beginning are now hyper critical of those who wear imperfect masks, and criticize inconsistently executed mask mandates. 

I presume this is directed at me. Just for the record, I have never been antagonistic towards masks or vaccines anywhere or at any time unless questioning is considered an expression of antagonism. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...