How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[fuzzy math]

The USA is still getting like 50k cases/day which is more than we were getting back in March/April 2020.  It's still very much spreading all over despite the wishful thinking of many declaring the pandemic over.

This sort of thinking is flawed. The US had WAY MORE cases last March / April. If you look at the death numbers and the percentages of New Yorkers who ended up with antibodies, its crystal clear that we had hundreds of thousands of uncaptured / untested cases. The infrastructure was not in place and available to test people at that time.

While I agree that we do not know the true case counts from early in the pandemic due to ramping up testing and ETC I do not think you can compare death counts now VS then as a large portion of the vulnerable population has been vaccinated or passed away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have repeatedly posted in these 125 pages of chat (as have many others) studies based on Infection rates, stool samples in the sewers, early infection stories in CA (January), immunity studies in communities etc that confirm what I asserted above. I'm not going to sort through all of it again for you or Nacho's benefit, as you can click through yourselves, but I assure you the data is right here and his (as well as your) thinking continues to be flawed in the face of much data.

Ok that was a bit aggressive...

One of the metrics you referenced was deaths then vs now.

I simply said I do not think you can compare deaths a year ago to deaths today due to vaccination reducing mortality.

I agree that case counts were much higher than were reported at the start so not sure what you take issue with?

Shrug


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're fostering paranoia by saying that we can't know just how much higher case counts were. Nacho has been paranoid and lashing out at everyone for 15 months. There absolutely is data, this thread shouldn't have people at 15 months and 125 + pages still believing falsehoods unless others are actively undermining or downplaying the evidence that's been presented. Its frustrating to see such misinformation perpetuate after so long. Vaccines came out in December and were not widely available to the public until February, so the death data over the winter still bore out the idea that 3000+ deaths a day correlated to way more than 50k cases per day. I should not have included you in my parenthesis, my frustration mainly lies with people like Nacho.

[frugalnacho]

Wow didn't expect that much backlash.  My main point is that it's still spreading and I think it's prudent to wear a mask indoors in public.  Maybe we had significantly more cases in spring 2020, but it still seems concerning to me that we've had an estimated 115M infections, 257M vaccine doses, and fully vaccinated 112M people, but we still had 21k+ people die in the last month.   

[alsoknownasDean]

What is going to happen when they start letting people in your country for business / leisure? Or when people from your country are allowed to travel for business / leisure?

If only people 50 and up are getting the vaccine seems like there will be plenty of hosts to spread around the rona and everything your country did to control it will be out the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People under 50 will get vaccinated later with Pfizer, but we'll be waiting a while for that until there's sufficient supply (we need to import it). I suspect I'll be a minimum of three months off being eligible for a vaccine.

The original plan was to vaccinate the population with the mostly locally-produced AstraZeneca vaccine, but with the issues around clotting affecting younger people, that's now offered mainly to people aged 50+.

Quarantine free travel 'bubbles' are being talked about between countries in a similar situation, one already exists between Australia and New Zealand.

It seems that case numbers in the US have dropped a bit, are varying vaccination rates in particular areas reflected in new cases?

As for masks, I wear mine on public transport and sanitise my hands when I leave the station. I guess it'll be effective at preventing other respiratory illnesses that come with winter, so I'm happy to continue doing it.

[habanero]

How many children have died worldwide from covid? The figure in Australia is 0.

If you take Sweden, which has had a pretty heavy case count and highly reliable numbers on deaths and hospitalizations.
Total pop ca 10.4 mio. Confirmed case count so far is just north of 1 million. Actual number much higher. Antibody testing suggests that rougly 20% of the population has had Covid afaik, so that would indicate actual case count  bit over double the number of confirmed cases in Sweden.

For 0-9 years they have 26k confirmed cases
For 10-19 years they have 128k confirmed cases.

0.6% of ICU patients are aged 10-19. (43 out of 7341)
0,4% are 0-9 years old. (32 out of 7341).

8 people aged 0-9 have died and 5 aged 10-19. Total deaths 14.217.

Don't know if they have changed their mind now, but if I recall correctly our folks said the regular flu was more dangerous for small children than covid-19 but that's a while back and they might have adjusted their take on it.

Not seen hospitalization data (ex-ICU) broken down by age group for Sweden so no idea on that.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

How many children have died worldwide from covid? The figure in Australia is 0.

If you take Sweden, which has had a pretty heavy case count and highly reliable numbers on deaths and hospitalizations.
Total pop ca 10.4 mio. Confirmed case count so far is just north of 1 million. Actual number much higher. Antibody testing suggests that rougly 20% of the population has had Covid afaik, so that would indicate actual case count  bit over double the number of confirmed cases in Sweden.

For 0-9 years they have 26k confirmed cases
For 10-19 years they have 128k confirmed cases.

0.6% of ICU patients are aged 10-19. (43 out of 7341)
0,4% are 0-9 years old. (32 out of 7341).

8 people aged 0-9 have died and 5 aged 10-19. Total deaths 14.217.

Don't know if they have changed their mind now, but if I recall correctly our folks said the regular flu was more dangerous for small children than covid-19 but that's a while back and they might have adjusted their take on it.

Not seen hospitalization data (ex-ICU) broken down by age group for Sweden so no idea on that.

CDC data for deaths age 0-17:
2017/2018 flu season: 643
2018/2019 flu season: 477
covid total: 277
Consistent with flu being ~2x as deadly as covid in children.

[Abe]

It's correct that COVID-19 causes less severe illness in young children than most strains of influenza.

Regarding vaccination rates and case rates per state: there is a weak but statistically significant correlation between vaccination rates and cases per day 2 weeks afterwards (decrease of 35.2 [95% CI: 31.7-38.6] daily cases per 10k fully vaccinated, p<0.001). i would caution this is a very simplified analysis and the overall correlation (R2) is less than 0.1.


Source: analysis of NY Times Covid data https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/tree/master/rolling-averages and CDC vaccination data https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations

[GuitarStv]

How many children have died worldwide from covid? The figure in Australia is 0.

If you take Sweden, which has had a pretty heavy case count and highly reliable numbers on deaths and hospitalizations.
Total pop ca 10.4 mio. Confirmed case count so far is just north of 1 million. Actual number much higher. Antibody testing suggests that rougly 20% of the population has had Covid afaik, so that would indicate actual case count  bit over double the number of confirmed cases in Sweden.

For 0-9 years they have 26k confirmed cases
For 10-19 years they have 128k confirmed cases.

0.6% of ICU patients are aged 10-19. (43 out of 7341)
0,4% are 0-9 years old. (32 out of 7341).

8 people aged 0-9 have died and 5 aged 10-19. Total deaths 14.217.

Don't know if they have changed their mind now, but if I recall correctly our folks said the regular flu was more dangerous for small children than covid-19 but that's a while back and they might have adjusted their take on it.

Not seen hospitalization data (ex-ICU) broken down by age group for Sweden so no idea on that.

CDC data for deaths age 0-17:
2017/2018 flu season: 643
2018/2019 flu season: 477
covid total: 277
Consistent with flu being ~2x as deadly as covid in children.

Definately, covid doesn't cause many deaths in children.  We still don't know how long the roughly 1/7 children who have recovered from covid but report long term symptoms and health problems because of the virus will continue to have problems though.  This is a worse outcome than caused by the flu and it still not fully understood.

[frugalnacho]

How many children have died worldwide from covid? The figure in Australia is 0.

If you take Sweden, which has had a pretty heavy case count and highly reliable numbers on deaths and hospitalizations.
Total pop ca 10.4 mio. Confirmed case count so far is just north of 1 million. Actual number much higher. Antibody testing suggests that rougly 20% of the population has had Covid afaik, so that would indicate actual case count  bit over double the number of confirmed cases in Sweden.

For 0-9 years they have 26k confirmed cases
For 10-19 years they have 128k confirmed cases.

0.6% of ICU patients are aged 10-19. (43 out of 7341)
0,4% are 0-9 years old. (32 out of 7341).

8 people aged 0-9 have died and 5 aged 10-19. Total deaths 14.217.

Don't know if they have changed their mind now, but if I recall correctly our folks said the regular flu was more dangerous for small children than covid-19 but that's a while back and they might have adjusted their take on it.

Not seen hospitalization data (ex-ICU) broken down by age group for Sweden so no idea on that.

CDC data for deaths age 0-17:
2017/2018 flu season: 643
2018/2019 flu season: 477
covid total: 277
Consistent with flu being ~2x as deadly as covid in children.

Shouldn't the covid death total be compared with the 2020/2021 flu season stats?  I would suspect there were significantly lower flu deaths in all ages this season on account of masks, social distancing, and people avoiding other people and activities.  A lot of kids I know still haven't returned to in person schooling.

[habanero]

Shouldn't the covid death total be compared with the 2020/2021 flu season stats?  I would suspect there were significantly lower flu deaths in all ages this season on account of masks, social distancing, and people avoiding other people and activities.  A lot of kids I know still haven't returned to in person schooling.

You cant relly compare to flu season 20/21 because there wasn't one. Haven't seen the US numbers but in Europe it's virtually non-existent this season. So deaths in all age groups in a contry might well be zero. Think we had like 5 confirmed cases in total in the entire country this year, all imported from abroad. So no domestic spread whatsoever.

You have to adjust for number of cases and in a regular season noone has a clue how many children had the flu because noone bothers. But even in countries with very widespread Covid, like Sweden, deaths among kids are very, very rare.

[frugalnacho]

Shouldn't the covid death total be compared with the 2020/2021 flu season stats?  I would suspect there were significantly lower flu deaths in all ages this season on account of masks, social distancing, and people avoiding other people and activities.  A lot of kids I know still haven't returned to in person schooling.

You cant relly compare to flu season 20/21 because there wasn't one. Haven't seen the US numbers but in Europe it's virtually non-existent this season. So deaths in all age groups in a contry might well be zero. Think we had like 5 confirmed cases in total in the entire country this year, all imported from abroad. So no domestic spread whatsoever.

You have to adjust for number of cases and in a regular season noone has a clue how many children had the flu because noone bothers. But even in countries with very widespread Covid, like Sweden, deaths among kids are very, very rare.

Yea I know that's kind of my point.  We collectively took so many precautions that we essentially eliminated the flu season, yet still have child covid deaths.  I don't know the best way to compare them without knowing true IFR and CFR of each, but just comparing total deaths between them when they happen under such drastically different situations doesn't seem comparable. 

[habanero]

Yea I know that's kind of my point.  We collectively took so many precautions that we essentially eliminated the flu season, yet still have child covid deaths.  I don't know the best way to compare them without knowing true IFR and CFR of each, but just comparing total deaths between them when they happen under such drastically different situations doesn't seem comparable.

That's becaue covid is far more contaigious, not because its more dangerous to get it per se (it is, but thats another story) and you had basically zero underlying immunity in the population to start with. The reproductive number of the seasonal flu is estimated to be 1.1-1.3 generally afaik and for covid it was maybe 3 and even higher with the new varieties. So anything that's remotely successful at containing covid is totally overkill to stop a flu season. When covid hit last spring here and measures were taken flu sesaon endend just like that. It went from steady cases to none and those monitoring it  just callled the season off. There was suddenly nothing to monitor. This was with no closure of shops, no mask wearing but general social distancnig, hand washing / sanetizing and home schooling for a few weeks. This season it never got going at all.

The lesson learned is - maybe - that with relatively small measures, like general hygiene, staying home if sick and so on flu cases might be reduced by a lot each season. If that's something the population as a whole is willing to bother with is another discussion, however. T

[Davnasty]

Yea I know that's kind of my point.  We collectively took so many precautions that we essentially eliminated the flu season, yet still have child covid deaths.  I don't know the best way to compare them without knowing true IFR and CFR of each, but just comparing total deaths between them when they happen under such drastically different situations doesn't seem comparable.

That's becaue covid is far more contaigious, not because its more dangerous to get it per se (it is, but thats another story) and you had basically zero underlying immunity in the population to start with. The reproductive number of the seasonal flu is estimated to be 1.1-1.3 generally afaik and for covid it was maybe 3 and even higher with the new varieties. So anything that's remotely successful at containing covid is totally overkill to stop a flu season. When covid hit last spring here and measures were taken flu sesaon endend just like that. It went from steady cases to none and those monitoring it  just callled the season off. There was suddenly nothing to monitor. This was with no closure of shops, no mask wearing but general social distancnig, hand washing / sanetizing and home schooling for a few weeks. This season it never got going at all.

The lesson learned is - maybe - that with relatively small measures, like general hygiene, staying home if sick and so on flu cases might be reduced by a lot each season. If that's something the population as a whole is willing to bother with is another discussion, however. T

I agree we shouldn't compare Covid outcomes to 20-21 flu but it's also misleading to compare it to other flu seasons. First because the poster who did so gave raw numbers rather than rates, but also because inoculum dose matters*. Past influenza viruses spread among populations with very different social behaviors which would have increased occurrences where the infected were inoculated with large doses of virus as compared to coronavirus infections.

In other words social distancing leads not only to less infection but also to less severe illness in those infected.


*Probably. Maybe someone who knows more about viruses and Covid specifically can chime in.

ETA: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30354-4/fulltext

univariate survival analysis revealed a significant difference in survival probability between those with high viral load (defined as being greater than the overall mean log10 viral load of 5·6 copies per mL) and those with low viral load (p=0·0003; appendix p 4)

[RetiredAt63]

Yea I know that's kind of my point.  We collectively took so many precautions that we essentially eliminated the flu season, yet still have child covid deaths.  I don't know the best way to compare them without knowing true IFR and CFR of each, but just comparing total deaths between them when they happen under such drastically different situations doesn't seem comparable.

That's becaue covid is far more contaigious, not because its more dangerous to get it per se (it is, but thats another story) and you had basically zero underlying immunity in the population to start with. The reproductive number of the seasonal flu is estimated to be 1.1-1.3 generally afaik and for covid it was maybe 3 and even higher with the new varieties. So anything that's remotely successful at containing covid is totally overkill to stop a flu season. When covid hit last spring here and measures were taken flu sesaon endend just like that. It went from steady cases to none and those monitoring it  just callled the season off. There was suddenly nothing to monitor. This was with no closure of shops, no mask wearing but general social distancnig, hand washing / sanetizing and home schooling for a few weeks. This season it never got going at all.

The lesson learned is - maybe - that with relatively small measures, like general hygiene, staying home if sick and so on flu cases might be reduced by a lot each season. If that's something the population as a whole is willing to bother with is another discussion, however.

I get my flu shot every year, but we know the flu vaccine is not nearly as effective as the Covid vaccine.  I will probably wear a mask while shopping next winter.

Flu numbers are definitely underestimated.  When DD had the flu back in 2009(?) when the bad H1N1 strain was going around, she was sick enough that she spent a night in ER.  She was never officially diagnosed, even though the hospital staff were pretty sure that was what she had.

[Davnasty]

Yea I know that's kind of my point.  We collectively took so many precautions that we essentially eliminated the flu season, yet still have child covid deaths.  I don't know the best way to compare them without knowing true IFR and CFR of each, but just comparing total deaths between them when they happen under such drastically different situations doesn't seem comparable.

That's becaue covid is far more contaigious, not because its more dangerous to get it per se (it is, but thats another story) and you had basically zero underlying immunity in the population to start with. The reproductive number of the seasonal flu is estimated to be 1.1-1.3 generally afaik and for covid it was maybe 3 and even higher with the new varieties. So anything that's remotely successful at containing covid is totally overkill to stop a flu season. When covid hit last spring here and measures were taken flu sesaon endend just like that. It went from steady cases to none and those monitoring it  just callled the season off. There was suddenly nothing to monitor. This was with no closure of shops, no mask wearing but general social distancnig, hand washing / sanetizing and home schooling for a few weeks. This season it never got going at all.

The lesson learned is - maybe - that with relatively small measures, like general hygiene, staying home if sick and so on flu cases might be reduced by a lot each season. If that's something the population as a whole is willing to bother with is another discussion, however.

I get my flu shot every year, but we know the flu vaccine is not nearly as effective as the Covid vaccine.  I will probably wear a mask while shopping next winter.

Flu numbers are definitely underestimated.  When DD had the flu back in 2009(?) when the bad H1N1 strain was going around, she was sick enough that she spent a night in ER.  She was never officially diagnosed, even though the hospital staff were pretty sure that was what she had.

Not sure of the method, but I believe annual flu cases/deaths are adjusted estimates. The numbers from the CDC aren't based solely on diagnosed cases.

I'm not defending the accuracy of those estimates, just pointing out that they are adjusted beyond diagnosed cases.

[RetiredAt63]

Flu numbers are definitely underestimated.  When DD had the flu back in 2009(?) when the bad H1N1 strain was going around, she was sick enough that she spent a night in ER.  She was never officially diagnosed, even though the hospital staff were pretty sure that was what she had.

Not sure of the method, but I believe annual flu cases/deaths are adjusted estimates. The numbers from the CDC aren't based solely on diagnosed cases.

I'm not defending the accuracy of those estimates, just pointing out that they are adjusted beyond diagnosed cases.

Presumably Health Canada does too, but I don't know how accurate they are if they do.  So much is dependent on Provincial/Territory reporting.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

How many children have died worldwide from covid? The figure in Australia is 0.

If you take Sweden, which has had a pretty heavy case count and highly reliable numbers on deaths and hospitalizations.
Total pop ca 10.4 mio. Confirmed case count so far is just north of 1 million. Actual number much higher. Antibody testing suggests that rougly 20% of the population has had Covid afaik, so that would indicate actual case count  bit over double the number of confirmed cases in Sweden.

For 0-9 years they have 26k confirmed cases
For 10-19 years they have 128k confirmed cases.

0.6% of ICU patients are aged 10-19. (43 out of 7341)
0,4% are 0-9 years old. (32 out of 7341).

8 people aged 0-9 have died and 5 aged 10-19. Total deaths 14.217.

Don't know if they have changed their mind now, but if I recall correctly our folks said the regular flu was more dangerous for small children than covid-19 but that's a while back and they might have adjusted their take on it.

Not seen hospitalization data (ex-ICU) broken down by age group for Sweden so no idea on that.

CDC data for deaths age 0-17:
2017/2018 flu season: 643
2018/2019 flu season: 477
covid total: 277
Consistent with flu being ~2x as deadly as covid in children.

Definately, covid doesn't cause many deaths in children.  We still don't know how long the roughly 1/7 children who have recovered from covid but report long term symptoms and health problems because of the virus will continue to have problems though.  This is a worse outcome than caused by the flu and it still not fully understood.

As I mentioned previously, I will not believe in the 1/7 figure until a high quality study with a control group suggests it is accurate.

Yea I know that's kind of my point.  We collectively took so many precautions that we essentially eliminated the flu season, yet still have child covid deaths.  I don't know the best way to compare them without knowing true IFR and CFR of each, but just comparing total deaths between them when they happen under such drastically different situations doesn't seem comparable.

That's becaue covid is far more contaigious, not because its more dangerous to get it per se (it is, but thats another story) and you had basically zero underlying immunity in the population to start with. The reproductive number of the seasonal flu is estimated to be 1.1-1.3 generally afaik and for covid it was maybe 3 and even higher with the new varieties. So anything that's remotely successful at containing covid is totally overkill to stop a flu season. When covid hit last spring here and measures were taken flu sesaon endend just like that. It went from steady cases to none and those monitoring it  just callled the season off. There was suddenly nothing to monitor. This was with no closure of shops, no mask wearing but general social distancnig, hand washing / sanetizing and home schooling for a few weeks. This season it never got going at all.

The lesson learned is - maybe - that with relatively small measures, like general hygiene, staying home if sick and so on flu cases might be reduced by a lot each season. If that's something the population as a whole is willing to bother with is another discussion, however. T

I agree we shouldn't compare Covid outcomes to 20-21 flu but it's also misleading to compare it to other flu seasons. First because the poster who did so gave raw numbers rather than rates, but also because inoculum dose matters*. Past influenza viruses spread among populations with very different social behaviors which would have increased occurrences where the infected were inoculated with large doses of virus as compared to coronavirus infections.

In other words social distancing leads not only to less infection but also to less severe illness in those infected.


*Probably. Maybe someone who knows more about viruses and Covid specifically can chime in.

ETA: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30354-4/fulltext

univariate survival analysis revealed a significant difference in survival probability between those with high viral load (defined as being greater than the overall mean log10 viral load of 5·6 copies per mL) and those with low viral load (p=0·0003; appendix p 4)

To address your criticism, I think we would need to compare the flu to a hypothetical situation where covid is also endemic rather than novel. Covid infections were high in children despite precautions because there was virtually no preexisting immunity against it in the population. Conversely, an appreciable portion of the population has partial or full immunity from circulating influenza variants due to previous exposure and vaccination. If ~1/3 of US children have contracted covid to date then the worst case with 100% infection would have resulted in ~1.5x the deaths estimated in a typical flu season. But the following year, if covid is still circulating, I would expect the infections and deaths to be drastically lower due to the benefits of adaptive immunity. If covid were to mirror the flu then 5-20% (CDC estimate) would be infected each year rather than the ~1/3 we saw over the last 16 months and covid would calculate out to be at least 3x less deadly than flu.

Of course, the caveat is that our estimates of prevalence and deaths of flu versus covid are reasonable. The more I read on how influenza surveillance takes place, the larger the error bars on infections and IFR I presume might be lurking.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

The 1/7 figure for children needs to be validated via a control group that got influenza or mumps or something. Many children will experience some symptoms over the course of an extended period - especially if the reporting parents know that the children have had a significant illness and are therefore keen to pick up on sequelae.

[habanero]

In addition to the increase severity of Covid and zero underlying immunity from the onset we also had something else that has never happened before: Near real-time coverage of a pandemic where everything is counted and numbers reported almost live for everything.

This litte story with the dude who was head of Sweden's population statistics in the 90s offers a little blast from the past. Compared to the April 2020 (peak covid), more swedes - both in abseloute numbers and as share of population more swedes died in a single month both in 1993 and and as late as year 2000. But noone noticed (bar funeral homes) and noone really cared. It's still a measures taken vs none taken - situation, but perception and reporting definately matters as well.

https://emanuelkarlsten.se/more-swedes-died-in-one-month-1993-and-2000-compared-to-april-2020-why/

10,458 Swedes died in April 2020, according to preliminary statistics. This is unusually high, as a total of around 90,000 Swedes die each year. But in December 1993, 11,057 Swedes died. And you have to take into account that the population then was significantly lower than in today’s Sweden. January 2000 was even worse — 110.8 inhabitants per hundred thousand died. That is higher than the Covid-19 numbers. This April, twenty years later, the figure was 101.1.

Åke Nilsson was responsible for Sweden’s population statistics in the 90s and does not remember that anyone talked about the difficult months around the turn of the millennium or in 1993 or 1996.
...
Åke Nilsson recalls that funeral contractors were the first to react to the increase. But he also recalls that Annika Linde, later state epidemiologist, called him a few months after the high death toll in 1993.

– It was known to her, of course. And I think we wrote a small article for a medical magazine about the matter, but I do not know if they published it, says Åke Nilsson.

[mizzourah2006]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

[GuitarStv]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

Have fun!  Hopefully this new guidance will help encourage more people to get vaccinated.

[frugalnacho]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

*Except any state laws that require it, or any business that require it.  Michigan still has emergency rules in place until October 14, 2021 that require masks in workplaces.  So at least another 5 months of masking for us.

[mizzourah2006]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

*Except any state laws that require it, or any business that require it.  Michigan still has emergency rules in place until October 14, 2021 that require masks in workplaces.  So at least another 5 months of masking for us.

Yeah our state lifted the requirement at the end of March. I expect businesses to go back to no mask here in the next couple weeks now that this guidance has come out.

I don't see the point of requiring it at a state level after the CDC is saying its ok. Especially that much longer. Might as well just require them forever at that point.

[the_fixer]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There is no easy way to tell if someone is vaccinated so essentially I expect almost no one will be wearing a mask.

People that had good mask compliance probably represent a high percentage of people that have already been vaccinated.

People that are anti mask I am guessing are less likely to be vaccinated (at least the ones I work with)

Do we think they will get vaccinated or just say they are and not wear the mask?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mizzourah2006]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There is no easy way to tell if someone is vaccinated so essentially I expect almost no one will be wearing a mask.

People that had good mask compliance probably represent a high percentage of people that have already been vaccinated.

People that are anti mask I am guessing are less likely to be vaccinated (at least the ones I work with)

Do we think they will get vaccinated or just say they are and not wear the mask?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My best guess is there will be a very small group that were vaccine hesitant that this may compel to get the vaccine. But I agree with you in that the people that weren't complying with mask mandates and businesses requiring are also those least likely to get the vaccine. So, they've been not wearing a mask for the past 6 months already.

I guess the way I see it is if you are scared you might come into contact with someone who isn't wearing a mask and isn't vaccinated either don't put yourself in that situation or continue to wear a mask.

[the_fixer]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There is no easy way to tell if someone is vaccinated so essentially I expect almost no one will be wearing a mask.

People that had good mask compliance probably represent a high percentage of people that have already been vaccinated.

People that are anti mask I am guessing are less likely to be vaccinated (at least the ones I work with)

Do we think they will get vaccinated or just say they are and not wear the mask?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My best guess is there will be a very small group that were vaccine hesitant that this may compel to get the vaccine. But I agree with you in that the people that weren't complying with mask mandates and businesses requiring are also those least likely to get the vaccine. So, they've been not wearing a mask for the past 6 months already.

I guess the way I see it is if you are scared you might come into contact with someone who isn't wearing a mask and isn't vaccinated either don't put yourself in that situation or continue to wear a mask.

I am vaccinated so not really worried about it from a personal level.

Just thinking it will be interesting to see how businesses handle it and if we end up with a slow burn of infections from people who refuse to wear masks / get vaccinated or another uptick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mizzourah2006]

We're Free!! CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks outside of public transit, airports, and hospitals/doctor's offices. I'm going to celebrate by not wearing a mask to the baseball game tomorrow night!

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There is no easy way to tell if someone is vaccinated so essentially I expect almost no one will be wearing a mask.

People that had good mask compliance probably represent a high percentage of people that have already been vaccinated.

People that are anti mask I am guessing are less likely to be vaccinated (at least the ones I work with)

Do we think they will get vaccinated or just say they are and not wear the mask?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My best guess is there will be a very small group that were vaccine hesitant that this may compel to get the vaccine. But I agree with you in that the people that weren't complying with mask mandates and businesses requiring are also those least likely to get the vaccine. So, they've been not wearing a mask for the past 6 months already.

I guess the way I see it is if you are scared you might come into contact with someone who isn't wearing a mask and isn't vaccinated either don't put yourself in that situation or continue to wear a mask.

I am vaccinated so not really worried about it from a personal level.

Just thinking it will be interesting to see how businesses handle it and if we end up with a slow burn of infections from people who refuse to wear masks / get vaccinated or another uptick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I didn't mean you specifically, I was talking more in generalities. We might end up with a slow burn of infections from that, but I think that's largely inevitable. It's not like most people that are against the Covid vaccine will be for it in 3 more months. The people you're describing will be that way next week and in July.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Once the vaccine has been widely available for long enough that anyone who wants it can reasonably get it (I assume the jab is free in the US like it is here?), the easiest and most ethical thing to do would be to open up completely and let natural selection do the rest.

[sui generis]

Once the vaccine has been widely available for long enough that anyone who wants it can reasonably get it (I assume the jab is free in the US like it is here?), the easiest and most ethical thing to do would be to open up completely and let natural selection do the rest.

Actually a dangerous assumption typically.  But yes, somehow, someway, people are not being charged to get the vaccine here in the US, whether they have medical insurance or not.

[marty998]

Once the vaccine has been widely available for long enough that anyone who wants it can reasonably get it (I assume the jab is free in the US like it is here?), the easiest and most ethical thing to do would be to open up completely and let natural selection do the rest.

This will be interesting to see one day how you feel about natural selection taking its course if your pregnant unvaccinated spouse is exposed to COVID.

Jesus Bloop even for you that is a harsh line.

Now you may just be talking about a certain anti vaxx cohort but there’s still a large number of people out there who are in the vulnerable immuno compromised bracket who would like a vaccine but probably can’t get it.

Can’t just leave them to die. The last 15 months have proved we are better than that.

[chemistk]

Once the vaccine has been widely available for long enough that anyone who wants it can reasonably get it (I assume the jab is free in the US like it is here?), the easiest and most ethical thing to do would be to open up completely and let natural selection do the rest.

Unless you want to pop over here and amend the US healthcare system so that hospitals aren't completely overwhelmed when a region has a surge of cases and aren't delaying or cancelling non-emergency treatment, that's just not feasible.

[frugalnacho]

Too young to receive the vaccine?  Immunocompromised? Severe allergic reaction to vaccines? Fuck you asshole, you probably deserve to die. 

[chemistk]

Too young to receive the vaccine?  Immunocompromised? Severe allergic reaction to vaccines? Fuck you asshole, you probably deserve to die.

That, and people who need chemo, surgery, or emergency intervention in locations where cases are surging. You live in an area with a lot of Covid deniers/antivax people? Sorry, fool, your life means less.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Too young to receive the vaccine?  Immunocompromised? Severe allergic reaction to vaccines? Fuck you asshole, you probably deserve to die.

Do you realise that these people currently live in a society that requires them to take special precautions for all diseases that are not covid? - e.g. influenza.

Once the populace is widely vaccinated we need to go back to normal.

Going by your argument, we should be routinely shutting down society whenever there's a bad flu season. After all, have to think of the immunocompromised people.

[frugalnacho]

Too young to receive the vaccine?  Immunocompromised? Severe allergic reaction to vaccines? Fuck you asshole, you probably deserve to die.

Do you realise that these people currently live in a society that requires them to take special precautions for all diseases that are not covid? - e.g. influenza.

Once the populace is widely vaccinated we need to go back to normal.

Going by your argument, we should be routinely shutting down society whenever there's a bad flu season. After all, have to think of the immunocompromised people.

Yes, "routinely" every 100 years or so when a deadly pandemic hits. 

[dougules]

We're still at over 600 deaths/day from COVID here in the US.  That's still more than the seasonal flu.  Things are gradually improving, but that's still not a level to just go back to normal.  My grandmother can't get the vaccine, and I don't understand why wearing a little piece of cloth over half of your face is such a big sacrifice to help her out until we get the numbers down. 

I don't know that masks policies really should change for the moment in situations where you can't verify everybody's vaccination status. 

[jehovasfitness23]

We're still at over 600 deaths/day from COVID here in the US.  That's still more than the seasonal flu.  Things are gradually improving, but that's still not a level to just go back to normal.  My grandmother can't get the vaccine, and I don't understand why wearing a little piece of cloth over half of your face is such a big sacrifice to help her out until we get the numbers down. 

I don't know that masks policies really should change for the moment in situations where you can't verify everybody's vaccination status.

exactly. If in March 2020 we were having 600 deaths/day we would be on lockdown, now it's just "normal" and acceptable, time to throw away an easily worn mask

[mizzourah2006]

We're still at over 600 deaths/day from COVID here in the US.  That's still more than the seasonal flu.  Things are gradually improving, but that's still not a level to just go back to normal.  My grandmother can't get the vaccine, and I don't understand why wearing a little piece of cloth over half of your face is such a big sacrifice to help her out until we get the numbers down. 

I don't know that masks policies really should change for the moment in situations where you can't verify everybody's vaccination status.

1. Deaths are a lagging indicator.
2. We will never be able to verify everybody's vaccination status, so are you proposing we wear masks forever? All they give you is a stupid piece of paper. I don't even know where mine is.

[dougules]

We're still at over 600 deaths/day from COVID here in the US.  That's still more than the seasonal flu.  Things are gradually improving, but that's still not a level to just go back to normal.  My grandmother can't get the vaccine, and I don't understand why wearing a little piece of cloth over half of your face is such a big sacrifice to help her out until we get the numbers down. 

I don't know that masks policies really should change for the moment in situations where you can't verify everybody's vaccination status.

1. Deaths are a lagging indicator.
2. We will never be able to verify everybody's vaccination status, so are you proposing we wear masks forever? All they give you is a stupid piece of paper. I don't even know where mine is.

Yes deaths are a lagging indicator, but number of cases is still not at a great place either.

If you in a situation where you can't sort vaccinated and un-vaccinated people, wearing masks should be based on how prevalent COVID is.  Once it's below a certain threshold as given by epidemiologists at the CDC, then we can all take them off.  That hopefully won't be all that long from now, so not a big sacrifice.  The variants are kind of slowing down improvements, but the fact that the US barely had a 4th wave at all from them is a pretty good sign. 

[mizzourah2006]

We're still at over 600 deaths/day from COVID here in the US.  That's still more than the seasonal flu.  Things are gradually improving, but that's still not a level to just go back to normal.  My grandmother can't get the vaccine, and I don't understand why wearing a little piece of cloth over half of your face is such a big sacrifice to help her out until we get the numbers down. 

I don't know that masks policies really should change for the moment in situations where you can't verify everybody's vaccination status.

1. Deaths are a lagging indicator.
2. We will never be able to verify everybody's vaccination status, so are you proposing we wear masks forever? All they give you is a stupid piece of paper. I don't even know where mine is.

Yes deaths are a lagging indicator, but number of cases is still not at a great place either.

If you in a situation where you can't sort vaccinated and un-vaccinated people, wearing masks should be based on how prevalent COVID is.  Once it's below a certain threshold as given by epidemiologists at the CDC, then we can all take them off.  That hopefully won't be all that long from now, so not a big sacrifice.  The variants are kind of slowing down improvements, but the fact that the US barely had a 4th wave at all from them is a pretty good sign.

But the CDC just said if you are vaccinated you no longer need to wear a mask. So are you saying if they set a specific threshold you'd follow that, but you won't follow their current guidance? What would be a good 7-day case average to you? We're currently at 40k/day.

Where do you feel comfortable going with your grandmother if other people are wearing a mask that you now feel is dangerous? Honestly if my grandmother was in her 70s+ and couldn't get the vaccine I don't think I'd want her going anywhere crowded regardless of whether or not people are wearing masks. People seem to think masks are some magical thing. I know they help, but it's not like when people started masking up Covid disappeared.

[dougules]

But the CDC just said if you are vaccinated you no longer need to wear a mask. So are you saying if they set a specific threshold you'd follow that, but you won't follow their current guidance? What would be a good 7-day case average to you? We're currently at 40k/day.

But that only works when you know whether somebody's vaccinated or unvaccinated, and as alluded, it's not always practical or ethical to just card everybody. 

I would like experienced epidemiologists at the CDC to make the determination as to what a good level is based on the best data they have.  That's why we have them.   

Where do you feel comfortable going with your grandmother if other people are wearing a mask that you now feel is dangerous? Honestly if my grandmother was in her 70s+ and couldn't get the vaccine I don't think I'd want her going anywhere crowded regardless of whether or not people are wearing masks. People seem to think masks are some magical thing. I know they help, but it's not like when people started masking up Covid disappeared.

Pretty much nowhere, but that's not practical.  That's why it would be nice if people would keep doing what they can to slow the spread until epidemiologists tell us it's not needed.

No, masks aren't magical, but they don't need to be.  COVID didn't disappear when people started wearing them, but it slowed down.  It doesn't have to be perfect at all to help tip the scales from exponential growth to exponential decay. 

I really just don't get why it's a big deal to wear a mask, anyway.  If it's uncomfortable, you should get a better one. 

[windytrail]

I really just don't get why it's a big deal to wear a mask, anyway.  If it's uncomfortable, you should get a better one.

Wearing a mask has always felt extremely uncomfortable for me -- like someone's hand over my mouth trying to suffocate me. There are probably evolutionary reasons for this: anything that blocks our body's ability to take in a full breath of oxygen is best to be avoided, generally. It's a natural stress response that is exerted when my body senses that its pathways for taking in fresh air have been restricted.

This is also some scientific research agreeing with this (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7087880/; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04670484):

The results from the experiment demonstrate that heart rate, microclimate (temperature, humidity) and subjective ratings were significantly influenced by the wearing of different kinds of facemasks. Nielsen et al. (1987) observed that delivery of air with different temperatures into a facemask corresponded to the application of a local thermal stimulus to the skin surface around the mouth, nose and cheek. This local thermal stimulus also affected the heat exchange from the respiratory tract. In our investigation, microclimate temperature, humidity and skin temperature inside the facemask increased with the start of step exercise, which led to the different perceptions of humidity, heat and high breathing resistance among the subjects wearing the facemasks. High breathing resistance made it difficult for the subject to breathe and take in sufficient oxygen. Shortage of oxygen stimulates the sympathetic nervous system and increases heart rate (Ganong 1997). It was probable that the subjects felt unfit, fatigued and overall discomfort due to this reason. White et al. (1991) found that the increases in heart rate, skin temperature and subjective ratings may pose substantial additional stress to the wearer and might reduce work tolerance. This could be the reason why Farquharson reported that working 12-h shifts while wearing an N95 mask had indeed been a challenge to their ED staff (Farquharson and Baguley 2003).

Other research has found that the amount of oxygen deprivation is not significant, but that still doesn't disprove the  discomfort that many of us feel.

Do you really not understand why some people find wearing a mask extremely uncomfortable, or was it just a rhetorical question?

[Cranky]

Again, if your mask makes you feel like you can't breathe, you need a better mask that isn't up against your face.

The trouble with leaving this to evolution at this point is that it's not going to stay with the idiot population. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm still not planning to do indoor stuff this summer, so...

[former player]

I really just don't get why it's a big deal to wear a mask, anyway.  If it's uncomfortable, you should get a better one.

[...]

Do you really not understand why some people find wearing a mask extremely uncomfortable, or was it just a rhetorical question?

I found it uncomfortable and unnatural to start with, but 14 months on I've got (made) better masks and become accustomed to wearing them.  Most of us can adapt to such inconveniences, which in the grand scheme of things are pretty minor.

[GuitarStv]

I really just don't get why it's a big deal to wear a mask, anyway.  If it's uncomfortable, you should get a better one.

[...]

Do you really not understand why some people find wearing a mask extremely uncomfortable, or was it just a rhetorical question?

I found it uncomfortable and unnatural to start with, but 14 months on I've got (made) better masks and become accustomed to wearing them.  Most of us can adapt to such inconveniences, which in the grand scheme of things are pretty minor.

Yep.  I compare it to wearing pants.

Pants suck.  They're uncomfortable, they're hot, and they have been proven to cause serious medical conditions (urinary tract infections, twisted testicles, bladder weakness and long-term health consequences - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247826#1).  Your body did not evolve to wear pants all day long.  I never wear pants while just hanging around in the house.  But I've somehow managed to learn to deal with the discomfort of wearing pants when out of the house.

[frugalnacho]

[OtherJen]

I really just don't get why it's a big deal to wear a mask, anyway.  If it's uncomfortable, you should get a better one.

[...]

Do you really not understand why some people find wearing a mask extremely uncomfortable, or was it just a rhetorical question?

I found it uncomfortable and unnatural to start with, but 14 months on I've got (made) better masks and become accustomed to wearing them.  Most of us can adapt to such inconveniences, which in the grand scheme of things are pretty minor.

Yep.  I compare it to wearing pants.

Pants suck.  They're uncomfortable, they're hot, and they have been proven to cause serious medical conditions (urinary tract infections, twisted testicles, bladder weakness and long-term health consequences - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247826#1).  Your body did not evolve to wear pants all day long.  I never wear pants while just hanging around in the house.  But I've somehow managed to learn to deal with the discomfort of wearing pants when out of the house.

Or shoes. Shoes can have negative podiatric effects if they aren't fitted properly, have poor arch support, or are made of unbreathable materials. They can cause everything from bunions, ingrown toenails, and fungal infections to plantar fasciitis and fallen arches. Yet, we are required to wear them in most public settings, whether or not there's a hookworm pandemic, because they also protect the feet. Somehow we all manage from a very early age.

[mizzourah2006]

So, then if they are the same as shoes and pants why not make them permanent? seems reasonable to me.

[GuitarStv]

So, then if they are the same as shoes and pants why not make them permanent? seems reasonable to me.

There's certainly a case for doing that.  Look at the way the flu season went in 2020!

But honestly I'm anti-pants, not pro-mask.  : P

[mizzourah2006]

So, then if they are the same as shoes and pants why not make them permanent? seems reasonable to me.

There's certainly a case for doing that.  Look at the way the flu season went in 2020!

But honestly I'm anti-pants, not pro-mask.  : P

I wear pants all winter to keep my house at a lower temperature. About $25 in sweatpants saves me $30-$40/month by allowing me to keep my house 5-7 degrees cooler each day. I also wear shorts a lot of places. I've never had anyone tell me to leave because I wasn't wearing pants in those instances.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Re: masks

I don't see why vaccinated people need to wear masks. It should be no people who are not vaccinated to wear masks, for obvious reasons.

You have to self-insure against risks. We don't require pedestrians to buy car insurance.