Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

Do you think society is becoming segregated along vaccinated/unvaccinated lines?

Asked by Demosthenes (12558points) 1 month ago

To be clear, I am vaccinated.

But I’m hearing more stories about showing vaccine cards to attend the opera or go to a bar or wearing a special badge at work showing your vaccination status…does anyone think that some of this is going too far?

After all reports are indicating the vaccine doesn’t prevent you from spreading disease, it doesn’t prevent you from getting disease. It makes it so that you are less likely to catch a serious form of the disease and be hospitalized. That’s it. And that was motive enough for me to get vaccinated. But it means it’s a personal choice. It’s none of my business to force someone to choose to be healthy. So why all the public display of vaccination status?

I don’t like the implications of where all this is going.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

111 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

It is a choice, yes. And choices, surprise, surprise, come with consequences.

Forever_Free's avatar

It is not going too far.

There is evidence that being vaccinated will not stop the spread either. The best thing we know what to do now based on science is to get vaccinated and wear. mask.

We don’t know where this will go, but I will follow science. I personally am double pfizer but wear a mask. I am now going back to making sure my exposure circle is small. I luckily will be able to stay working remote for quite some time.

janbb's avatar

I’m about to go on a plane where people do not have to show they have been vaccinated. It makes me pretty concerned. As for a private venue like a theater, I think they have every right to set the rules regarding vaccination. Also, there is evidence that you will shed less virus if you have been vaccinated and have a breakthrough case so you are less likely to pass it on.

Zaku's avatar

People have the right to organize events where they ask people to behave in ways that provide safety and/or comfort for the people at the event.

Requiring masks and vaccinations for an event is not any more a violation of rights as requiring you to leave your weapons outside, or follow a dress code, or to stay off the grass, or not to talk in the library, or not to wear perfume where there are allergic people, or to not smoke at the gas station, etc.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I really do believe society here is becoming segregated regarding the vaccines. People are attacking each other verbally on social media and in person, even family members, telling people they will no longer be around them while unvaccinated, etc….

We have over 200 people a day in our hospitals here, so it’s a huge societal shift locally, where some feel being unvaccinated put their family at risk, while others feel it’s a choice they shouldn’t be judged for making, when it comes to not being vaccinated.

When you have babies in the hospital with Covid, it gets very personal. Or like a local family who’s lost four family members in the last two months. It’s very much hitting home now.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Just in general there is no way to know who is vaccinated and who isn’t.

No, vaccinations won’t stop you from picking up the virus. What it does is stop the body from reacting to it. It stops the body from making replicas of the virus because it’s not active in the body.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I agree that there’s no way to tell for sure who is vaccinated.

Having said that, if you drew a bunch og Venn diagrams, you would see lots of overlap among the following groups:

Non-vaccinated people
Fox News watchers
Republicans particularly the far-right
Anti-science people
People who think Trump won the election last year
People who deny the seriousness of the Capitol attack in January

There are definitely communities of shared values.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I believe you are well grounded in your unease regarding “where all this is going”. Along with a lot of us you’ve been conditioned to believe ours a society moving toward progress through rational judgement and adherence to facts. This divergence of opinion regarding vaccinations is but another crack in my former view that as a collective we improve. My problem is that I can’t decide whether my alarming view on what appears to be the disintegration of rational cohesion is actual fact or merely some distortion of perception exaggerated by the characteristics of old age. But I mean Trump was supposed to be as likely a possibility in this day and age as sailing off the edge of the earth. Yet, here he is. I hear scientology is on the uptick, and I had a conversation yesterday with a lifelong friend whose forlorn wife has convinced him to pack up and follow his adult kids (and grandkids) to Texas. These are indeed interesting times.

gorillapaws's avatar

Not being vaccinated is reckless and endangers other people. It’s no more a “personal decision” than to walk around with a loaded gun and the safety off, or driving drunk, or driving around with an unsecured cargo that could fly off and hurt someone behind you. Everyone should be vaccinated, wearing masks and avoiding gatherings until this pandemic is snuffed out globally. If we focus on on that goal, this will be over quickly, if we don’t it’s going to linger for years and could very well result in mutations that render the existing vaccines ineffective. Then we’re all fucked and we’ll have the unvaccinated morons to thank (those of us that survive).

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

But it means it’s a personal choice.

It isn’t all about you. Grow up.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

There are definitely communities of shared values

Tribalism is at the core of vaccine “hesitation”. Trump taught them that the pandemic wasn’t real and that fighting it was a liberal thing. His followers eschew the vaccine to show loyalty to the group and to stick it to The Libs.

zenvelo's avatar

Discriminate is a loaded word. No one is being discriminated because of the vaccine: everyone is able to get it. And, it is self segregation.

All the strict constructionists ignore the Preamble to the Constitution:
”...promote the general Welfare”

Mimishu1995's avatar

In some cities in my country people are being given permission papers for going outside. Basically people are only allowed to go outside at a certain time in the day, and sometimes on certain routes. And everyone is fine with it. No one really screams oppression unless there is a secret community of people hating on it that I don’t know.

I think the vaccine paper looks much better than our permission paper.

kritiper's avatar

No. When I walk down the street, I can’t tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@zenvelo Correct. It is self-segregation and’rednecks’ subculture.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

More like a big divide, between people with common sense, and the conspiracy think set. People who recognize the benefits of vaccines, and people who think every little moment is fraught with a conspiracy by some shadowy “they,” who are out to control the world. But anti vaxxers have been with us for years, long before any one ever heard of Covid.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Vaccinations along political party lines Democrats more likely to be vaccinated than GOP.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Yes but many Republicans willingly got the shot early and have encouraged others to do the same.

In April the difference was 2% between the parties countrywide, for instance.
California is currently only @10% more vaccinated than my state which is in crisis.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL Is right, there are plenty of moronic unvaccinated people on the left too. You know the type. They’re the ones buying raw water and get their healthcare from geode crystals instead of people with medical degrees.

product's avatar

I don’t know. It all seems pretty hopeless. We have people in the US (and in this thread) feeling great about themselves and drawing firm conclusions about vaccination rates that don’t vary all that much in the states. On days they feel even more self-righteous, they might add an extra “x” to antivaxxxer in order to score some points with their friends.

But really? We’re f*cked. These variants seem to be having relative success against those currently vaccinated. And the US is not living in a bubble. We can go on about Uncle Chucky who refuses to get vaccinated because he thinks it will make him a gay communist, but we are living in a reality where global vaccination rates are tiny. Think the Delta variant is having it easy? The overwhelming majority of humans living on earth are unvaccinated and providing a perfect opportunity for even more dangerous variants.

I’d love to be able to go talk to a person who is hesitant to get vaccinated and feel as though that would make the difference. But the reality is – we’re f*cked. I feel horrible for my kids and everyone who now have to live the majority of their lives in this reality. It sucks. Hard.

filmfann's avatar

I think if you are unvaccinated, you can only post in General.

Demosthenes's avatar

@filmfann Okay, that made me laugh out loud.

@product I feel horrible for my kids and everyone who now have to live the majority of their lives in this reality.

I fear you are correct that this will be a long-term reality and will be the rest of (some of) our lives. Oh well, I’ll always have the memories of my 20s…

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

The longer more people remain unvaccinated, the greater potential for more dangerous variants. Unvaccinated people are dangerous breeding grounds. They put me at risk.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

All I know is the Teabaggers I know in North Carolina are bad mouthing anyone that gets a vaccinated. Using all fright wing BS including it has chips, it causes COVID-19, it’s only a bad cold because they had it and finally “Damn Democratic Governor wants people to wear masks and get vaccinated, that’s socialism !”

Nomore_lockout's avatar

As I said, the conspiracy think set. Everything is some Cosmic Plot to screw them over.

si3tech's avatar

It is indeed a choice. I do think there nay be a separation/divide between the tyranny
of the vaccinated and those choosing not to get vaccinated.

smudges's avatar

@janbb I flew to Houston and back. No one asked about vaccinations, but masks were required both on the plane and in the airport. No exceptions. I’m sure they’ll require masks on your flight also. They also offered individual hand sanitizers packets. Check into what your airline says about it. I flew United.

JLeslie's avatar

I think we are divided politically (Republicans vs Democrats) way more than unvaccinated and vaccinated.

Advent Hospital Systems in Orlando has over 1,000 covid cases and went to code Black. The are not doing any elective procedures.

To me that means that at least some people who took a vacation to Disney for happy family time are dying right now. I do think this latest upsurge of cases will cause more people to get vaccinated. The hospital has had to deliver babies before term for pregnant women in the ICU (from what I understand they have all been viable babies and I assume the babies are ok). This is the most cases at one time at Advent since the start of the pandemic.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Meanwhile hospital staff are STILL not required to be vaxxed at one of two major health systems here. It’s so bad here, guys.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Wow, your area has really been put through the wringer. It’s like two months now isn’t it?

My husband drove all the way up to TN on the 18th because all employees had to be back in the office starting the 19th. The official back from covid date. They just decided everyone should work remote next week. It’s crazy. He’s driving home to FL tomorrow. We are supposed to start renting our apartment there in two weeks.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Only 41% fully vaccinated still. They’re doing it to themselves and won’t listen.
Be real careful travelling!

seawulf575's avatar

Yes, it is. And it isn’t really based on science at all. It is a political stance. It is an expression of control by our government OVER us, not in support of us. For all of you that say vaccination is to protect everyone, there are a couple things you need to consider. First is that being vaccinated doesn’t mean you can’t catch or spread the disease. That is the first misleading thing that is being pushed when talking about getting everyone vaccinated. CNBC just reported on a recent CDC finding. 74% of the people in the recent Massachusetts Covid outbreak were fully vaccinated. It also goes on to say that these same people carry far more of the virus in their nasal cavity than the CDC originally thought. In other words, being vaccinated didn’t keep them from getting the disease and it is likely they are the ones spreading it.

CDC Guidance has changed significantly over the past couple months. That is only realistic if you consider that it is political. In a real world, non-political issue, they would gather data and put it out only after they were fully sure of their finding. Their jump on easing mask wearing for vaccinated people came out before there were even that many people vaccinated. It was done as a carrot, I suspect. But as a scientific release, it sucked. That recommendation wasn’t based on the data since there really was no data of any significance. So the decision was fully political…to get people vaccinated. And as we are now seeing, the vaccines aren’t all they were touted to be.

We still see many, many places that have dual mask criteria. If you are fully vaccinated, you don’t need to mask up and if you aren’t, you do. You have a situation now where companies (yes, even private venues) are treating people differently based solely on their vaccination status. And as we are now finding out, it is a bogus difference. But once again, it will be the Media to the rescue! They will blame all covid outbreaks on UNvaccinated people only, once again trying to segregate our society.

SABOTEUR's avatar

I find myself to be weary of the whole subject. I don’t know whose right or whose wrong about mask protection. But considering the great number of people dying it made sense to me to err on the side of caution.

What annoys me is some people are treating this like their religious cause. I don’t care if you believe or disbelieve…that’s your choice. But you go too far when you attempt to sway people to believe what YOU believe.

If you don’t want to wear a mask, don’t wear a mask. But don’t be surprised if you come across people who prefer not to be in your company.

seawulf575's avatar

@SABOTEUR “If you don’t want to wear a mask, don’t wear a mask. But don’t be surprised if you come across people who prefer not to be in your company.” I entirely agree with that. But unfortunately, society and the government are not in agreement. They are demanding you wear a mask whether you want to or not. If you choose not to, you are segregated.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Well, I think there is an obvious pattern. During big times of commerce the government lets people kill themselves. I am only half joking. Holidays and when school is out for the summer. The government really has no choice because the right wing in the country will start protesting and worse. The government has to manage the population for the greater good and That includes avoiding civil war. Again half joking.

Initially, the health officials did believe or hope that vaccinated people who are infected would shed less virus, but that isn’t the case.

Extremely vaccinated communities did see a huge decrease in cases and much less transmission. My city is one of those places where we were vaccinated very early on in large numbers in a fairly small geographic location (25 miles by 7 miles) and we were all back to being with each other and cases and stayed low. Until school let out and people started traveling to visit family again in large numbers. Plus, the Delta variant is out there. I’m not sure which is more important, but the two together are wreaking havoc.

I wish I knew how many people are sick right now in my city, FL stopped reporting by city. I also wish I knew how many vaccinated people are sick in my city, FL (maybe the country) seems to not be recording if someone is vaccinated if not when they test positive, they are only tracking that for hospitalizations. I’m not surprised.

I’ve said for over a year the government only ”cares” if the virus is killing a large amount of people or causing permanent damage to the body in a lot of people. Which actually is exactly why covid is a big deal, because it does still kill a lot of people, and overloads our medical system risking people who need other medical care not having access.

@SABOTEUR Your last paragraph is perfectly said.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie “Initially, the health officials did believe or hope that vaccinated people who are infected would shed less virus, but that isn’t the case.” That is part of my point. Health officials aren’t really supposed to “believe” or “hope” in a scientific issue. They are supposed to have data to research to make informed decisions. Anything less is nothing but political pressure being brought to bear on them.

And I believe the Delta variant is a cause for many of the new cases. But the guidance for vaccinations/masks/etc with it has been totally confusing. At first the vaccinations were touted as being effective against it, though maybe not as effective as the original strain. But now we are seeing it isn’t. But the guidance still isn’t clear. In the end, I say as I did when Covid first started…it’s going to kill us or not.

SABOTEUR's avatar

@seawulf575 Ohhhh!

The government has been forcing certain conditions on minorities for decades.

Why is this any different?

seawulf575's avatar

@SABOTEUR It isn’t. Any time the government is forcing anyone to do certain things, it is a slippery slope. I do have to ask, though…how does the government force conditions on anyone?

SABOTEUR's avatar

@seawulf575 Spoken like a person whose never been Black in America.

‘nuff said.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I don’t find it confusing at all. Democrats use that same “confusing” line, and I don’t agree. Masks obviously do work we proved it over and over again. Masks right now would curb transmission significantly. Even better, people mostly staying home for a week. Just a week would probably cut cases in half.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Absolutely. I recently had a party with about 40 people and asked that everyone be fully vaccinated. Almost all the attendees we’re engineers or technical folks so I registered with NYS and got the NYS scanner app so we could play with it. The attendee’s phone displays a QR code, like an airline boarding pass. The scanner verifies it and displays a green check mark. I did not check people but we did play with the scanner to see if it was working and reliable. It was. We also checked to see if it was reporting info back to the mother ship. We did not see any evidence of that or even the capability.
Concert venues will use this tool in the near future since there
are unvaxxed people faking the vaccination cards.

SABOTEUR's avatar

@seawulf575 I may have been hasty submitting my previous reply. Conditions, as I see it, are the consequences that result from an action. The government doesn’t force conditions but they’ve intentionally enacted policy that resulted in severely crippled a large segment of the population. Poverty, drug dependency, homelessness, etc. are the direct result of such government policies.

seawulf575's avatar

@SABOTEUR I don’t take offense at hasty replies. You have shown you are usually very thoughtful in your replies. But look at some of the things you are taking as solely race driven results. Poverty. There are more white people living below the poverty line than blacks. Drug dependency. That happens across the demographic spectrum. There were many, many drugs available when I was growing up. The government was fighting against drug usage. It was punk kids like myself that were doing them anyway…just to prove them wrong. Homelessness. That strikes across all races, ethnicities and sexes. None of these are directed at any given group.

There are some policies that impact many of these things, some directly and some indirectly. Example: increasing taxes makes it less likely for companies big and small to hire more people. Fewer people working means more poverty, homelessness, etc. That has been proven over and over again. Other things like the shutting down of the economies during the Covid pandemic led to many businesses closing their doors forever. No businesses, no jobs. Additionally there was a big spike on drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, suicide, etc. Those were probably not thought of when they took those actions, but it impacted people nonetheless.
I firmly believe there are a couple things that impact most of those things you identified as conditions and probably some you didn’t. One is a good education and the other is a good solid family unit. Both of those things impact many of those things. And I believe the family unit is the bigger impact. If there are two parents in a family that are active in their kids lives (not overbearing or anything, but interested and asking the appropriate questions), there would be more effort put towards getting a good education. There would be more awareness of aberrant behavior that might signal drug usage. There would be more love in the children’s lives and less confusion. Society peer pressure would have less of a foothold on those kids.

Now I will agree that some of the governmental actions over the decades have contributed. And I know that it will sound biased politically, but I believe that many of the Democrat policies contribute big time. I happened to be looking at homelessness yesterday as a matter of fact. I wondered which cities had the most homeless people in them. I found an article that showed the top 10 list to be NYC, LA and county, Seattle, San Jose, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Phoenix, Washington DC, and Boston. Most of those cities are in Democrat controlled states and all are controlled by Democrats. I might have given weather as a reason for homelessness (It’s easier to be homeless in a warm state than in a cold one), but Seattle, NYC, Boston and even Washington DC put a pin in that thought. I would have understood if TX, FL, even GA, SC, NC etc were on the list. But they aren’t.

But I don’t believe that the government puts programs in place with the idea that it will hurt one group or another…not when the programs apply to all.

JLeslie's avatar

I have my QR code for my vaccination that @LuckyGuy spoke of.

SABOTEUR's avatar

Wow. Not sure I can address everything you noted…do the best I can.

First off, I can only address issues I experience or think I know about. Being Black I tend to express certain opinions from my perspective as a Black man.

There are more white people living below the poverty line than blacks

I never said poverty was solely a “black issue”. I simply said it is the result of policies enacted (or supported) by the government.

…good education and the other is a good solid family unit.

Fairly well documented that schools atrended predominantly
by minorities have fewer resources than schools attended by whites. * Policies that historically deny minorities the same job opportunities and policies that profile minorities for arrest and inprisonment, often with harsher penalties that whites for the same offense, contribute to the decline in family structure.

The government was fighting against drug usage.

Despite the fact they injected drugs into the black community around the time of the Vietnam War. The government even used drugs to experiment on Black soldiers. Hospitals (John’s Hopkins in Baltimore MD for instance) used drugs to experiment on Black people. One of the reasons some Black Americans distrust and refuse to take the Covid vaccine.

… I believe that many of the Democrat policies contribute big time.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I respectfully suggest you study Black history. You might find that a what you see as well intentioned government policy was anything but.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They had nobody watching. No one cared.

SABOTEUR's avatar

@seawulf575 The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male was an ethically abusive study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis. Although the African-American men who participated in the study were told that they were receiving free health care from the federal government of the United States, they were not.

seawulf575's avatar

@SABOTEUR I do remember something about the government feeding drugs into black neighborhoods. And my personal take on that is that those who came up with that idea ought to be held personally accountable for every death their plan caused. That would be a start and would possibly stop other idiotic ideas like that from coming to fruition. But let me ask. The Vietnam War ended in 1975. 45 years ago. Does that mean that black communities had to keep doing the drugs? Or really any community? I include all communities because the problem is so widespread today. I have a daughter that got hooked on heroin and have known many other younger people that have died of overdoses.

I truly enjoy talking with you about these things. You have a good perspective. But I truly believe we are hijacking this thread. Apologies to all!

SABOTEUR's avatar

@seawulf575 Spoken like a person who’s never experienced or known anyone with a drug dependency.

Seriously…you should read before you make statements like this. You do realize it’s much harder than “just say no”.

I think it’s probably best I stop commenting. I’m probably pushing you toward subjects you’re not ready to accept.

My apologies.

seawulf575's avatar

@SABOTEUR Did you not read my answer? I had a daughter that was hooked on heroin. It dragged her down the rabbit hole and she even OD’d twice. Thankfully there was someone there that could restart her heart. It took a lot of effort on our part to help push her to getting clean. And she now is. She turned her life around. But that even makes my point even more valid. She would never have gotten to this point if it weren’t for a loving family. We kicked her ass when she needed it and hugged her fiercely when she needed it. But it got her on the right path.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I actually tire of confronting you with exasperating comments when you present these arguments and I could easily hog this thread in attempts to refute them all. But I will pick just one to demonstrate the uselessness of information without the reasoning to draw logical conclusions. I will start with your take on the propensity for homeless people to inhabit Democratic cities. You look at those figures and conclude this proof that those cities generate homeless people. My own guess would be that homeless people are not necessarily stupid. So let me ask you: if you were homeless, would you choose a place like Texas, Florida or any other Republican bastion with social welfare infrastructure equivalent to that of Bosnia, along with an open hostility and undisguised contempt for the poor? The homeless crowd into Democratic cities for the same reason Latinos swarm our Southern borders! The homeless accumulate in places where they will be at least grudgingly TOLERATED and stand some chance of being fed. Now how hard is it to figure that one out?

nikipedia's avatar

@Demosthenes “After all reports are indicating the vaccine doesn’t prevent you from spreading disease, it doesn’t prevent you from getting disease. It makes it so that you are less likely to catch a serious form of the disease and be hospitalized. That’s it. And that was motive enough for me to get vaccinated. But it means it’s a personal choice. It’s none of my business to force someone to choose to be healthy. So why all the public display of vaccination status?”

The vaccine doesn’t 100% prevent you from spreading disease, but it reduces the spread of disease. If it reduces your risk of getting sick, it reduces your risk of spreading the disease. And since we’re talking about spreading the disease to other people—other people who might not be able to isolate, mask, or get vaccinated—then it’s no longer a personal choice.

My dad has lymphoma. He got vaccinated, and then asked his doctor to check him for antibodies. Because his immune system is suppressed, he can’t produce an antibody response. So your vaccine exists to protect him. It’s not a personal choice.

@seawulf575 “CDC Guidance has changed significantly over the past couple months. That is only realistic if you consider that it is political.”

I am glad you wrote this because it gives me a lot of insight into how people who think differently from me see things. My sense is that CDC is doing the best they can. Science is an iterative process, and it means you update your conclusions based on new data. I would be more concerned if CDC dug in on their original position after finding out they were wrong, then that they changed their minds and updated their recommendations.

Why do their recommendations need updating? Why can’t they just be right 100% of the time? Why not keep their mouths shut until they can be 100% sure? Because it is their job to look at the available data at the time and make the best recommendation they can. That means that yes, sometimes they will be wrong. But it also means you can trust them to revise course when new data become available. I’m a scientist, and I trust CDC recommendations.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It is ALL of course political. It is the politicians who govern us. And the trade off of corpses against commerce looms over EVERYTHING. If I can hide on my yacht off Tahiti while you have no choice but to work in my factory petrie dish for contagion, I have little doubt out there in the Pacific as to which decision to expect.

raum's avatar

Science is an iterative process, and it means you update your conclusions based on new data. I would be more concerned if CDC dug in on their original position after finding out they were wrong, then that they changed their minds and updated their recommendations.


jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Homeless and mentally ill inhabit cities because that’s where the resources are. Social services, shelters, food pantries, services for the mentally ill, services for children, services for physically disabled, health services, services for drug rehab, services for women, services for victims of domestic violence, social services, housing services and Section 8. Any resourceful person isn’t going to live in the boondocks, they’re going to live where they can get it done.

Dutchess_III's avatar

CDC is changing guidelines based on how we behave.

seawulf575's avatar

@nikipedia I understand how science works. I also know that when confronted with a scientific problem, you don’t give an answer before you have all the data. At best you should only say that preliminary data is in and isn’t enough to form solid conclusions. To come out with demonstrative answers and recommendations based on those answers is irresponsible at best. Take masks for instance. You do know that the CDC and the WHO each had several studies that were done and peer reviewed that stated that mask wearing shows no ability to stop the spread of viruses? These were done several years before Covid-19 and were looking at masks being used in operating rooms. But that was before the politicians wanted everyone to wear masks. If you remember, Fauci initially said not to waste time with masks since they don’t work. That was based on those studies. But then he revised it to wearing masks may not work, but they are better than nothing. And now it is that masks work, have always worked, and are the only thing between us and immediate destruction. Yeah, I paraphrased the last. But which is it? Are peer reviewed studies now not reliable and only political desires are what reality should be? Or are we saying that independent studies, done by several highly respected groups without any political agenda at the time were not reliable? If so, then what happened to make those groups suddenly reliable now?

And with their recommendations changing, you are absolutely correct. They can and should be updated as things change. But their recommendations are changing pretty much weekly and we are finding that the new changes are no more credible than the last. That isn’t science, that is hokum.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I have to ask. You have a very vocal opinion of Republican run areas. How many of those have you actually lived in? How many did you actually have to use the social provisions that were offered? None? Huh.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I understand that homeless and mentally ill people inhabit cities in far larger numbers than in rural areas. That makes sense on a number of levels. But the question still remains: why are only the Democrat controlled areas on the top 10 list? I mean, why not Dallas? Jacksonville FL? Atlanta? Why not even somewhere like Sacramento? So why are the largest number of homeless in areas that are strongly Democrat? Is there some other aspect? I’ll give you that NYC is the biggest city in the country and LA is the next so those are probably a percentage thing. But many of the others aren’t near the top of the population list so that doesn’t account for all the homeless.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575 I can’t speak specifically to the cities you mentioned because I don’t know enough about them, and I’m not going to spend my Saturday afternoon googling and researching the homeless populations of the cities and why and what factors influence each one, specifically. I can tell you that if a city is run by a Republican mayor, the focus is most likely going to be on cutting public jobs, enhancing development, welcoming businesses and corporations and things that benefit the wealthy, rather than the things I mentioned above: social services, domestic violence services, shelters, services for the mentally ill, etc. That’s where charities and privately run agencies may step in, but their effectiveness is limited if someone is not able to get on public assistance or get permanent housing, or food stamps. I worked in public service for almost 30 years, believe me, I know. A private agency or a charity can hold someone’s hand and take them down to social services, but if the services aren’t there, the charity can only do so much.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I do not need to visit hell to offer you a reasonable explanation on why I would move from there given a choice. And I also require no book of statistics to tell me where I would choose to live if I were homeless. And as soon as you can pull up any links indicating the flight of homeless New Yorkers or San Franciscans for Houston or Coral Gables, I will apologize in full.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And as you surely know my contempt for Republican areas is nothing compared to my regard for the Republicans in charge.

nikipedia's avatar

@nikipedia I understand how science works.

Can you prove it? Have you ever updated your conclusions based on new information?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly So you really don’t know anything about Republican run areas and you are just blowing hot air. Again.

seawulf575's avatar

@nikipedia I have indeed. And to put your mind in the right place, I worked in nuclear power chemistry for more than half my life. I’ve dealt with science. I’ve come up with hypotheses and had to prove and/or disprove them. Science is in my wheel house. How ‘bout you? Ever have an actual scientific job?

JLeslie's avatar

Oh lord. Lol. Has @nikipedia worked in science? Look out. I’ll let her tell you.

@nikipedia Is your dad planning to get a third dose? My dad also did not spike any antibodies probably because of pre-existing conditions and also he’s in his late 70’s. Although, from what I understand maybe he has some immunity? That other fighter cells would recognize the virus and rush in? I’m not clear on that.

Moreover, I live in a 55 and up city and now Israel is recommending a third dose for people 60 and up and there was that German study months ago showing that 30% of people aged 80 and older had no antibodies after receiving both Pfizer doses. No separate information for 70 and up. People in their 50’s still had good stats. That would mean my community (of 130,000 people) that we estimate to be over 80% vaccinated, might only have approx 85% of that 80% actually immune.

Is it clear to you whether the statistics regarding immunity being given by US health officials is based on blood tests and not simply how many people are getting sick? It appears to me initial trials were just on how many got sick compared to the placebo group. Inadequate in my opinion! I heard on TV, I can’t remember who said it, that the trials on children “for the first time” would be evaluating immune response. This reinforced my annoyance regarding lack of antibody testing. When I talked to some people in the initial trials they said they did not have blood tests following the vaccinations.

Lastly, we have all this Pfizer data because Israel is working closely with Pfizer as sort of a bubble country, but what about Moderna. Am I right that Moderna is more than a triple dose (100mg vs 30mg each dose) or is it not apples to apples? I read Moderna was doing a trial for half dose, I don’t know what happened with it. I think the goal was so more people could be vaccinated.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 you’re right of course. There’s no fooling you.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley I’ll tell you what the homeless have told me in interviews, that there is no one as generous as naive do-gooder Christians.

On that note, to tie this back to vaccines, why do we even have homeless now post-Covid? Most are not vaccinated so I wonder why they are still alive?

nikipedia's avatar

@seawulf575 How ‘bout you? Ever have an actual scientific job?

You could say that. What would count as “an actual scientific job” in your book?

Btw, you did not answer my question. I asked if you have ever updated an existing belief based on new information. Have you?

seawulf575's avatar

@nikipedia I did answer your question as far as science goes. I have solved “mysteries” that didn’t fit my existing beliefs and have researched farther and revised my beliefs on that. As for personal beliefs? Yup, I’ve even revised some of them. Look at vaccines for instance. At first I thought they might be okay and was pleased that we (as a society) managed to streamline the approval process. But then I did some more research. The mRNA vaccines were being worked on since around 1990 but could never get past animal testing because of side effects and long term effects that were seen. Then suddenly they are approved for use. Further research shows they were starting animal testing concurrently with injecting people. That made me revise my existing belief of the vaccines being good to one of doubt. It seems incredulous to me to believe that almost 30 years of unsuccessful efforts were suddenly rewarded with a successful output, especially when the part of the original testing that stopped all previous success was put aside until human injections were occurring. Does that sound like sound science to you?
BTW, I could say you have had an actual scientific job, but you didn’t. Care to actually answer the question? My definition of a scientific job isn’t an issue…yours is.

nikipedia's avatar

@seawulf575, Have you ever heard that saying, “Never wrestle with a pig?”

seawulf575's avatar

Ahh…so you don’t have an answer to what your scientific job was/is. Got it. How about an answer to other questions I asked? How about do you believe that starting animal testing at the same time you start giving it to the public is good science given a technology you’ve never been able to get to human trials before? How about ignoring peer reviewed studies because you don’t like their conclusions? Is that good science? Come on…your public is waiting for your answers. I mean, after all, you have them convinced you are some sort of scientific genius. I’m skeptical at best. Want to change my opinion?

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 You seem to be under the impression that the pandemic will pause its spreading while we take the time to form rigorous scientific conclusions. Are you familiar with how exponential growth functions work (try folding a piece of paper in half 8 times)?

When a house is burning down, should the firefighters model the geometry of the house first and run a physics simulation to determine the exact angle, volume of water, saturation rates of the materials used in construction to plan out the most efficient means of extinguishing the fire? or should they use their (admittedly imperfect) knowledge and experience with similar fires and do their best to contain it before is burns the whole city to ash?

If I remember right, @nikipedia was doing brain research on primates or something like that back in the day (I could be misremembering that though).

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws You seem to miss the part where @nikipedia challenged that I knew nothing of science. And so far, despite your statements, he/she has given NOTHING showing that he/she ever did. He/She has shied away from every question I have asked concerning the “science” being put out by the government and surrounding the history of the vaccines. If you want to be smarmy with someone, why don’t you weigh in on @nikipedia and urge her to put me in my place and change my opinions…something she has challenged me with yet refuses to do his/herself.

nikipedia's avatar

@seawulf575, I won’t answer your questions because I don’t think you’re willing or able to change your opinion. I hope you will continue to dig in on the accusation that I’m not an Actual Scientist, because it will give a few people here a good chuckle, and I think we are all in need of a laugh these days.

@gorillapaws, technically true, since humans are primates ;)

seawulf575's avatar

@nikipedia It appears YOU are the one that is unwilling or unable to change your opinions. And you are afraid to respond to actual challenges to your fantasy world. Claim what you like behind the scenes to your adherents. I don’t know you and so far all you have shown me is that you are full of hot air. And you aren’t even willing to try changing my opinion on that. And now you are trying desperately to blame your fears on me.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 It just sounds like the maximization function you’re solving for is different from mine. I’d like to minimize the global number of dead and number of people suffering from long-term medical problems—which would include minimizing the likelihood of a vaccine-resistant variant emerging as a necessary corollary. Your priority seem to be seeking to minimize the amount of personal inconvenience to yourself. Do I have that right?

This pandemic has seen the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb’s worth of people dying nearly every 2 weeks on average.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: You are the one who I believe is unable to change your opinion. In previous debates, I’d sent you many links to back up what I said, and you either ignored the links (while posting none of your own to back up your own claims) or you’d have some reason why my links were not up to par. Repeated requests to you to back your arguments up with links were met with silence.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is no reasonable expectation regarding rational judgement swerving any attitude erected by poor wulfie on any critical topic. On this one, you need only recall his assessments of this disease and measures regarding its containment from the outset. Right along with Trump and his retinue, our wulfie poo-pooed the disease as merely overblown exaggeration by a sensationalist press of a seasonal outbreak. The working theory to which he adhered was that all the uproar was invented to damage Trump. When I told him this outbreak would be haunting us for years and that we would be wearing masks for years, his response was “where’s your proof?” He then proceeded to waltz in lockstep with Trump and his crowd of dummies straight into a dose of the infection—to emerge convinced that following the advice and demonstrably idiotic pronouncements of the fool irrelevant to his dance with death. There comes a point when there’s no longer any use attempting to reason with a man beyond reason. I mean if the threat of death won’t do it, what use is logic?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws No, you don’t have that right. My priority is to follow the science which so far I haven’t seen at all from our government. What I HAVE seen is a lot of posturing and position changing…all of which are not science. I have stated many of my concerns in this area here. I have stated WHY they are concerns. And not a single person, even the one that poses as an ACTUAL SCIENTIST has been able to say a single thing about them. THAT concerns me because it says that most of you that spout off about how dangerous things are really don’t care. You are merely running scared and don’t care to look into why you are scared or what you are putting your faith in.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And here we are once more in this tiresome debate that we’ve had with you for better than 18 months. I have since the beginning understood and recognized EXACTLY why I have been running scared as well as EXACTLY what it is that terrifies ME. And that is simply people such as yourself. And here in a nutshell is why it is hopeless engaging with you in discussion over the matter.

As a point of fact, not a single discovery or fact regarding this disease has arisen to alter my perception of what I need to know or fear concerning covid since its arrival. Here’s what we’ve ALL known: the disease is contagious. It can can kill you, and it can be spread through aerosols exhaled by affected individuals. That is all the science required to understand that the course of the disease would be dependent on the behavior of the same population which saw fit to elevate Trump to the Presidency. In other words, WE WERE DOOMED FROM THE BEGINNING. And for me, no further speculation has been necessary since the realization of that single fact. In point of fact, you can NEVER go wrong regarding ANY public health prognosis as long as such predictions follow the time tested maxim that people are stupid. My own defense then as now is simply to avoid people, wear a mask and await the arrival of vaccinations. Nothing has changed. If you’re looking to get sick, assemble in crowds, and pursue the company of self identifying stupid people—the magahats and maskless.

JLeslie's avatar

Here’s some science. Florida currently has an average positivity rate of 18% and NY is 3%. Within FL the most vaccinated counties have lower positivity rates than unvaccinated counties even with the glut of tourists invading my state this time of year. Orlando hospitals are being crushed with covid cases, Orlando has a high density of unvaccinated TOURISTS. I include family visiting family as tourism.

Thank goodness Disney and Universal are putting some mask rules back into place. The county, Orange County, is actually fairly well vaccinated in comparison to other counties in FL, but we are inundated with unvaccinated tourists in Orange. Orange still actually has a lower positivity rate than many of the very unvaccinated counties, Orange is 18%. FL has counties as high as 31% positivity rate right now. Many counties in the mid to high 20’s.

Businesses need to use their brains and not wait for CDC guidelines, it’s been frustrating since the start! I was writing my grocery store and the state for three weeks to require masks in stores before the CDC finally recommended masks back in the beginning of this mess.

CDC, FDA, they wait for conclusive data gathering and then put together a recommendation, but the writing is on the wall before the recommendations usually. We can certainly err on the side of caution and not wait for them.

We should be wearing masks, especially when traveling and in high population density situations, and more testing, especially during times of big travel and visiting for holidays. Home test prices need to be cheaper I wonder the profit margin on it.

There is no mystery, no confusion. When people are infected with a contagious virus that spreads through droplets, people interacting near each other will spread the virus unless we curb the droplets using a mask or distancing.

Vaccinated people seem to be sick for much fewer days and less likely to get gravely ill. Fewer days means fewer days to spread it around to others. The R0 most likely is much less among the vaccinated population, but I haven’t seen specific data on that.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly And there you have the crux of the problem I have. I see a problem and want to take actions against it. But it has to be the right actions. Until we actually are honest about everything to do with this virus, any actions taken are shots in the dark at best. And they could make things worse. That is science in action. You question everything. You question your premises, you question your methodologies, you question every assumption that you make. If you don’t you aren’t doing science. You are trying and hoping. And that rarely works. What do you think, @nikipedia? Care to comment on how I am wrong in my view of science? Care to bring you self-described history into play to prove me wrong?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 The actions should be to err on the side of caution, because it’s too dangerous and too important, even if it’s going ahead of conclusive science. Even if being prudent winds up being overkill once we establish conclusion with science.

People complaining about lockdown but don’t want to do anything to avoid them. It’s illogical, emotional, it’s self destructive.

This is the same as climate change. We could err on the side of caution and keep our earth and air cleaner and even if it never affected the climate it still would help us be healthier and it shows a reverence and appreciation for the miracle of our planet and of life.

Yet, people resist doing what will most likely give the most health, the most freedom, the most positive effect on greater society and themselves.

gorillapaws's avatar

@JLeslie “The actions should be to err on the side of caution, because it’s too dangerous and too important, even if it’s going ahead of conclusive science. Even if being prudent winds up being overkill once we establish conclusion with science.”

I love this quote by M. Leavitt:

“Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist. Everything we do after will seem inadequate.”

JLeslie's avatar

@gorillapaws Yes, great quote. When I first heard it I compared it to people going off of meds because they feel better. You felt better because you were on the meds!

I just saw someone on TV talking about the reason the previously hesitant are starting to finally get vaccinated now I s fear. That was from some polling he did, he derived reasons for changes in attitude. That means Delta and death maybe has a silver lining. We’ll see. I fear it won’t be enough. It’s probably still just pockets in the country changing their attitude.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf Like you I read about the Covid deaths and complications, as well as successes. I would never say there are no risks.

JLeslie's avatar

@Demosthenes I just reread your OP. Where did you see the vaccine doesn’t help prevent people from catching covid?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL And the trick remains to minimize those risks. And to my mind, those “tricks” remain basically the same since the day the disease arrived. Shut your ass in the house. If you must leave—ALWAYS wear a mask. And get vaccinated. Now there are those who will tell you that we need to get back to work for the good of the economy. And it’s true. But it seems to me that as with everything else, it’s the people least likely to be engaged in those jobs with the greatest risk—people like myself who are eager to have others insert their heads in the noose. It reminds me of the days when I was young, and the people who owned the country preferred that I be the one sacrificed to defend it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly I actually meant adverse reactions to the vaccines, being posted all over social media and tiktok, etc… They are pretty horrible video’s so I can see why some are terrified of having those reactions, like GBS.
I really try to remind myself of those issues when dealing with anti-vaxxers so I empathize rather than criticize.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie “The actions should be to err on the side of caution, because it’s too dangerous and too important, even if it’s going ahead of conclusive science.” There is a lot here. One of the peer reviewed studies I read concerning masks stated that not only do they not work for viruses, but they could actually make things worse. There were several reasons. But the point is that we entirely ignored those studies and started demanding everyone wears masks. And now it has become something that is “erring on the side of caution”.

The part of that statement where we need to take action even if its going ahead of conclusive science is pretty much exactly what I am saying we shouldn’t do. Look at the vaccines as a perfect example. mRNA technology has never successfully been developed. It never made it past animal testing. Until Covid, that is. And they did animal testing…as they were injecting humans. So we moved ahead of conclusive science. We ignored that this technology has never been successfully tested. We held no one accountable to ensure testing was done prior to injecting people. And if the animal testing were to suddenly show that there are severe, fatal (or worse) side effects that take several months to show up…would you feel the same? That it was prudent to move ahead of conclusive science?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Open your eyes. look at where the cases are exploding. The unvaccinated places are getting killed literally. Florida vaccination rate is in the middle of state rankings, but we get MASSIVE movement from other states and countries that constantly keep us at higher risk. Our vaccination rate does not include tourists in the statistics.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “One of the peer reviewed studies I read concerning masks stated that not only do they not work for viruses, but they could actually make things worse.”

What’s your source? This study found the opposite:

”...the main result is that mask mandates are associated with a significant improvement in COVID-19 outcomes (corresponding to 14% of the highest recorded number of daily new cases, 13% of deaths, and 7% of hospital admissions). As described in the Materials and Methods section, our analysis covers all 50 states (including the District of Columbia) and 857 counties (representing 77% of the US population) from Feb 2, 2020 to September 27, 2020, and we include a large number of robustness tests….Taken together, these results strongly suggest the positive effect of mask mandates, mask adherence and mask attitudes on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I have a ton of friends who went to Florida this year, from here. That’s scary. I can wait another year.

JLeslie's avatar

This was written by a friend in TN. I thought it was worth posting here. He has great arguments.


I’ve heard all the arguments about taking the vaccine. But how about a little common sense?

The worst argument I’ve heard is that it’s not a vaccine. If you’re relying on an old dictionary, it’s going to tell you that a vaccine is a preparation made from inactive bacteria or viruses. The word, in fact, comes from the Latin for cow because the coxpox virus was used to make the smallpox vaccine. Check out a newer dictionary like Merriam-Webster online. It will tell you that the definition now includes any preparation manufactured to stimulate your body’s immune system to fight specific diseases.

But that’s just semantics. Who cares what it’s called? Does it work?

No vaccine is 100% effective. Some people who are vaccinated are going to get the virus. But what do the odds say? Without getting specific, since the numbers change every day, isn’t it obvious by now that if you’re vaccinated that you’re less likely to get the virus at all? And isn’t it obvious that if you do get it, you’re less likely to end up in the hospital and die?

How about folks who fear side effects? Again, look at the odds. How many people have suffered serious side effects? Maybe one in a million? Whatever it is, it’s very unlikely to happen to you. Long-term effects? No, we don’t know. Do you know the long-term effects of every kind of medicine you take? Probably not.

Let’s talk about all the government conspiracy theories. Anyone who knows me knows I don’t like government. I’m a libertarian. But let’s get real.

Do I trust all the numbers put out by the government? No. Do I think they’ve included people who died with COVID rather than of it? Yes. But do I think COVID is real and dangerous? Of course! Just open your eyes. Is there anyone who doesn’t know someone who has had it? Don’t many of us know someone who has died because of it, either directly or because it exacerbated another condition?

Do you believe the Democrats wanted lockdowns and a crashing economy to make Trump look bad? Maybe they did. But don’t try to tell me the Democrats are trying to scare us now. If you haven’t noticed, they’re in charge now.

What about masks? Do they work? They’re not perfect. Do they hurt? Not likely. Do they help? Probably. I know they can’t catch every tiny thing. But, again, let’s just use common sense. If two people are talking to one another wearing masks, doesn’t it stand to reason that they re going to exchange fewer particles than if they weren’t wearing them?

Mandates? No, I’m not a fan. For me, it’s your choice. But do you not care about anyone other than yourself? I enjoyed the last few months when I thought it was safe to resume normal activities. If everyone eligible had gotten the vaccine, we’d still be enjoying that situation. Instead, we’re seeing a resurgence of the virus. People are dying that didn’t need to. People are on ventilators that didn’t need to be. Most were not vaccinated. But some were. Do you not feel any sympathy for those who tried to do right but were made sick by those who didn’t? Do you not feel any obligation to help keep it from happening to others? Or to the children that can’t get the vaccine?

So now, I’m facing the likelihood that I’ll be wearing a mask everywhere I go. That’s if I can still go places like the gym which may have to close again. It was nice going to restaurants again, but who knows how long that’s going to last? People are going to lose jobs. ICUs are going to be strained to capacity. We’ll give the government yet another excuse to spend money they don’t have.

But it can be avoided. So, I’ll try one last thing that might be an effective appeal to some. On July 25, in Arizona, Donald Trump recommended that you take the vaccine.


JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Luckily, the majority in my community take it seriously and many more people are wearing masks again and not socializing quite as much. I feel good about that. We have always been able to bring cases down when we see them spiking.

The problem is my state no longer gives city data so we don’t know how bad it really is right here where I live anymore. It might be not very bad at all, we don’t know. It’s frustrating. There are cases here for sure, but is it 10 a day or 50? We have to assume the worst.

JLeslie's avatar

Florida breaks an all time record for the COVID pandemic. 11,515 people currently hospitalized with covid. 96% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated.

kneesox's avatar

I think society is becoming segregated along intelligent/stupid lines.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

^^^ Something new ? ^^^

Demosthenes's avatar

Right now the narrative is that the unvaccinated are entirely to blame for the variants, but I’m not so sure about that. The vaccine was touted as being the one thing could lead to eradication, but now it’s becoming clear that isn’t happening (Pfizer, the vaccine I received, is apparently only 42% effective against the delta variant). I’ve acknowledged that the vaccines do prevent hospitalizations and that is extremely important. But, the narrative was that vaccines would lead to the end of mask mandates and the end of the pandemic, and that’s not happening. Vaccinated people can still catch the disease and the disease can still mutate and spread even if the symptoms are lesser. So while I’m not at all saying getting vaccinated is pointless or a bad thing, I’m not sure this increasing division between unvaccinated/vaccinated is a good thing (nor does it make sense to entirely blame the unvaccinated for the increasing number of variants). San Francisco just issued a mandate that proof of vaccination is needed to enter certain businesses; I’m sure it will come to my county soon enough. And with that I think we’re all going to see more fake vaccine cards.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws There are many studies that show masks don’t work. But let’s start with the one you provided. It is not a Randomized Control Test. It is an observational study. It takes other studies (that likewise were not RCT) and tries to combine their findings. RCT is the gold standard since it uses control groups and evaluates the results based on the findings they get. Something that makes me suspicious of studies such as the one you provided is the date they were done. As politicized as Covid has been, results are the starting point and the testing is a byproduct. They have an answer they want and set about finding it. That isn’t science at all. And the fact they aren’t RCT says they really aren’t worth the time it took to do them. There are too many variables that are unaccounted for.

But let’s look at some other studies. Since you went to PLOS, here is one that shows masks don’t work at all. Please note it was done in 2010 AND it is an RCT. It has much better controls and it was outside the sphere of covid political influence.

I did find this one that IS an RCT and was done in 2021. It shows that wearing a mask does nothing significant towards reducing the spread of Covid.

This article from the CDC confirms that masks don’t work. It was from May of 2020, still early in the Covid era. It cites numerous RCTs that back up this conclusion.

The list goes on and on, but really…the science does not support that masks do anything. I would also suggest that the way people actually use masks might increase the spread. When a person uses PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) to prevent the spread of contaminants, one of the most basic usage concepts is to change the PPE frequently. If you are using latex gloves, for instance, once you use them for one thing, you take them off and throw them away. Why? So if they got contaminated, you don’t spread it. People wear the same masks day after day. If they have covid, they are at best saturating the cloth with the virus. Then, every time they breath out, they push more out of the mask than they might normally have released. Combine that with the false sense of security they provide and you have people not social distancing because, well, they are wearing masks. Even N95 masks, if you don’t change them out frequently, will break down and spread the contamination.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 NONE of the studies you linked demonstrate your claim that “masks don’t work at all.”

The first study is limited to household transmission regarding influenza which is transmitted via aerosols. Surgical masks are worthless for preventing aerosol transmission. I don’t think anyone disputes that point, but that doesn’t mean that surgical masks are pointless in other contexts such as in a grocery store. I’ll come back to the aerosol vs. droplet transmission below.

The second study: “It shows that wearing a mask does nothing significant towards reducing the spread of Covid.” Bullshit. Either you didn’t actually read it or you didn’t understand it. It showed that surgical masks weren’t helpful in protecting the wearer. It did don’t study whether the mask is effective in source control. Again this is not controversial and does not contradict what the CDC has been saying. More on this below.

The last article you concluded: “This article from the CDC confirms that masks don’t work.” Again, complete bullshit. If you actually read the article you’d realize that the meta analysis only cites a single other study regarding the efficacy of masks for source control. Here’s that study your third article references which concludes: “The study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control, but is limited by small sample size and low secondary attack rates. Larger trials are needed to confirm efficacy of medical masks as source control.” In other words it’s underpowered but supports the idea that masks are beneficial for source control with influenza in a hospital setting.

Masks work. They prevent droplet transmission FROM INFECTED PEOPLE to OTHERS. that’s called source control. My mask protects you, your mask protects me. They don’t protect the wearer as N95’s do. If everyone is masked then the transmission rate in a community is reduced significantly.

Surgical/cloth masks don’t prevent aerosol transmission. If you stick two masked people in a confined space (like a household) for a period of time and one is infected, the other will also become infected given enough time. Nobody disputes this. Since Covid is transmitted by aerosols, does that mean masks are pointless? Fuck no! Just one droplet is enough to infect someone, and it takes a considerable period of time in an inclosed space for aerosol transmission to occur. If you’re infected and maskless in a grocery store, you’re projecting thousands of particles all over the place. You could conceivably infect dozens of people. Whereas if you’re masked and infected it’s quite likely that the aerosols you produce during your 30 minute visit will be sufficiently diluted to never hit the infectious does threshold for anyone else in the store.

This is kind of a silly analogy, but let’s say there were two ships. One of the ships fired large missiles with big warheads that could take out other ships with one shot. It also fired many times more small missiles. It takes a thousand of these little misses to sink the other ship. Now further say there was a shield that could be put over the ship that would instantly block all outgoing large missiles but still allows the smaller ones to get through. If the 2nd ship sails by the first ship without the shield, it’s much more likely to sink than if the shield is up. It may take many small missile hits, but not enough to cross that threshold and sink. If the second ship hangs around the other ship long enough even with a shield, eventually those small missiles add up and it will go down. But that doesn’t mean the shield is worthless. On the contrary, it’s a major boon to the odds of survivability in most cases.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws so let me get this straight, the CDC writes “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” and you say that doesn’t prove anything. 14 RCTs are not as good as your one mechanistic study. You are a piece of work, my friend.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 Sigh…. Alright, let’s walk through your 3rd study step-by-step:

Go to the “Face Mask” section in which they reviewed 10 RCTs.

Study 1:
“One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group ”

This is studying primary source protection, NOT source control. It’s irrelevant to the claims being made about Source Control.

Studies 2 & 3:
“Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months”

Again, primary protection—not what we’re discussing with COVID.

Study 4:
“1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only”

This is studying household environment where masks are pointless. If you’re breathing the same air as a person invected with a virus that’s transmissible via aerosols for an extended period of time, the cloth mask is not going to help you. This doesn’t contradict anything I’ve claimed about mask wearing.

Study 5:
_“Another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only.”

This was the one I read and discussed in my previous post. It’s the only study in the bunch that deals with source control in an environment outside the home.

Study 6–10:
“and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts”

These are all household studies. Same response as with Study 4. It’s not relevant to the conversation.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws And the one you liked, has this in the results section: “In an intention-to-treat analysis, rates of clinical respiratory illness (relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.13), ILI (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13) and laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.54) were consistently lower in the mask arm compared with control, although not statistically significant. A post hoc comparison between the mask versus no-mask groups showed a protective effect against clinical respiratory illness, but not against ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections.

In other words, the masks really didn’t do anything. Their conclusions are very generic and inconclusive as you would expect given the size of their test.

JLeslie's avatar

Over 4,000 students in quarantine in Hillsborough County right now (Tampa, FL is in Hillsborough County). That might not be very mask related in schools, it’s probably students and teachers who brought covid into the school, because school just started, but I predict outbreaks in many schools that will cause lots of quarantined and illness and then masks and more distancing will be back in schools and in communities in general. The anti-mask and anti-vaccine population will get smaller and smaller.

I saw Mayor Suárez of Miami yesterday in an interview saying exactly what I’ve said, DeSantis for an entire year allowed and supported the counties and cities putting in mask orders, curfews, and other precautions as they saw fit, and then DeSantis switched course and it’s a mistake. Suarez pointed out it is a Republican value to let local leaders have some autonomy. This could be a crucial political mistake for DeSantis in Florida, especially with the Latin American community in South Florida.

He can still reverse and people will have their usual amnesia, but he seems to be dug in on this course. My guess is he is raising all sorts of money. The base of the Republican Party that likes this ridiculousness feels good when they tithe to their leaders.

The people who have been against getting vaccinated have the opportunity to save face and get the shot when the FDA does full approval. They can either say, “that’s good enough for me now That It’s approved,” or they can dig in and make up garbage like Biden made the FDA approve it.

Regarding previous covid infection, I think it was this thread that I said I do think people who had covid have immunity and don’t necessarily need the vaccine right away. I saw a report yesterday talking about antibody tests being sufficient for places that require vaccination. I’ve been saying this all along. I saw someone interviewed yesterday (I don’t remember his position) who is absolutely not anti-vax has an extremely high level of antibodies and he said he’ll check again eventually and if his number is lower he will get a booster (one shot). I think this idea will gain traction.

I really feel we need to develop better tests regarding immunity. The current antibody test is not sufficient.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “And the one you liked, has this in the results section”

That wasn’t one “I liked,” it was the only study referenced in the CDC meta analysis that had anything to do with source control of cloth masks outside of a household. The entire CDC study you linked essentially distilled into (for the purpose of Covid and masks) an underpowered study of people in a Hong Kong hospital that showed a small, but statistically insignificant benefit for source control with mask wearing. From that you’re concluding:

“This article from the CDC confirms that masks don’t work.” Which is not at all supported by the evidence in the study. I think it does demonstrate that cloth masks are ineffective for primary protection (“My mask protects me”), and that they’re not effective for preventing viruses transmissible via aerosols in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time (like in a household). It does nothing to support your claim that “masks don’t work.”

The best way to understand if masks work for source control is to look at outbreaks in various communities with and without mask mandates and compare the R number of the virus in those locations. You seem to be unwilling to even consider such a study because it cannot be executed as.a RCT.

If you wanted to create a RCT for the effectiveness of source control of masks you’d need to create an entire community of participants all under quarantine. Send individuals infected with influenza or something equivalent, both masked and unmasked through the community as they interact with the subject, and then test those community members for influenza. Good luck.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@gorillapaws GA but too many facts !;>)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther