Vaccine or not?

[AthensVol2007]

(I'll reply in two parts, since I don't know how to interpolate without disrupting the "quote" function.)

Yes, I am of that belief, because that's the message that was published by the CDC. I admit that after a cursory search online I was unable to find a satisfactory explanation of why this should be so. Perhaps one of our resident scientists can explain the mechanism at work -- or, if this idea has subsequently been disproved, I'm happy to retract that portion of what I wrote above. (I've devised a few hypotheses of my own, but I won't share them here, lest I add to the cacophony of disinformation that attends discussion of this general topic.)

Because the CDC said so? That’s good enough for me; they’ve surely been a bastion of consistency and honesty throughout this entire thing.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Exactly. And I am not a saint in these areas by any means and have room for improvement. I also understand it is tougher for some people than others. But let's be honest, people that are overweight are more susceptible to Covid complications, heart disease, overall mental well-being, etc. They also put a significant strain on our health care system. But we just ignore the elephant and criticize the unvaccinated?

Heart disease and cancer kill roughly 5x the number of people per day as our current COVID-19 death rate in the U.S. Diabetes is about equal (and likely undercounted).

 

[508mikey]

Heart disease and cancer kill roughly 5x the number of people per day as our current COVID-19 death rate in the U.S. Diabetes is about equal (and likely undercounted).

What about plain old, old age ?

 

[kiddiedoc]

What about plain old, old age ?

Well, you can't outrun Father Time. But, you can eat actual healthy food, get your ass off the couch and exercise or work outside regularly, not inhale carcinogens into your lungs, etc.

 

[AthensVol2007]

I'll attempt an answer in good faith to what you've written in this part, if you give me an answer in good faith to a question I posed (by implication) earlier. Let's assume, arguendo, that you are correct that masking is not efficacious. What, then, do you really mean, when you say that the immunocompromised are protected by their own masks?

I believe masks do very little in the grand scheme and are overall pointless, so in my opinion, an immunocompromised individual isn’t getting much protection from them.

However, others insist they work and are necessary, therefore if they do work, an immunocompromised person wearing one should be “protected” or their chances minimized of inhaling the virus, regardless if I have one on myself.

Side note, The University of Florida collected 6 worn masks (average of 5.7 hrs at a time) from elementary age kids in Gainesville and found numerous pathogens and bacteria on them. It’s cruel, unnecessary and unsafe to have young kids masked all day when their chances of contraction, severity and transmissibility are so low.
Dangerous pathogens found on local residents' face masks - Alachua Chronicle

 

[AM64]

(I'll reply in two parts, since I don't know how to interpolate without disrupting the "quote" function.)

Yes, I am of that belief, because that's the message that was published by the CDC. I admit that after a cursory search online I was unable to find a satisfactory explanation of why this should be so. Perhaps one of our resident scientists can explain the mechanism at work -- or, if this idea has subsequently been disproved, I'm happy to retract that portion of what I wrote above. (I've devised a few hypotheses of my own, but I won't share them here, lest I add to the cacophony of disinformation that attends discussion of this general topic.)

It seemingly should work the same in both directions with a major exception ... proximity. Assuming the virus is attached to vapor particles, those exhaled directly into the mask would probably become fixed on the mask because of the droplet size.

From a longer distance you'd suppose that the droplet might diminish in size before reaching the mask. However, calculus also takes over there with dispersion. Droplets radiating from a point source will disperse in a spread. Exposure to a mask wearer depends on how many emitters (infected humans exhaling viral effluent) there are, their proximity, and how long you are exposed to that "cloud". Lessen exposure time, increase distance from the emitter, and add barriers - all lessons one learns in radiation exposure - just with a twist in the "toxic" emission. The other part has to do with mask fit - doesn't do much good to wear one over a beard, have gaps, or one that that only blocks big stuff. Also mask wear doesn't do much for you if you slide it down under your nose or flip it in your face as you remove it and inhale the stuff it trapped on the surface.

 

[AM64]

I believe masks do very little in the grand scheme and are overall pointless, so in my opinion, an immunocompromised individual isn’t getting much protection from them.

However, others insist they work and are necessary, therefore if they do work, an immunocompromised person wearing one should be “protected” or their chances minimized of inhaling the virus, regardless if I have one on myself.

Side note, The University of Florida collected 6 worn masks (average of 5.7 hrs at a time) from elementary age kids in Gainesville and found numerous pathogens and bacteria on them. It’s cruel, unnecessary and unsafe to have young kids masked all day when their chances of contraction, severity and transmissibility are so low.
Dangerous pathogens found on local residents' face masks - Alachua Chronicle

Would you prefer having those pathogens trapped on the mask or in their lungs or nasal passages?

 

[508mikey]

I believe masks do very little in the grand scheme and are overall pointless, so in my opinion, an immunocompromised individual isn’t getting much protection from them.

However, others insist they work and are necessary, therefore if they do work, an immunocompromised person wearing one should be “protected” or their chances minimized of inhaling the virus, regardless if I have one on myself.

Side note, The University of Florida collected 6 worn masks (average of 5.7 hrs at a time) from elementary age kids in Gainesville and found numerous pathogens and bacteria on them. It’s cruel, unnecessary and unsafe to have young kids masked all day when their chances of contraction, severity and transmissibility are so low.
Dangerous pathogens found on local residents' face masks - Alachua Chronicle

 

[AthensVol2007]

Add smoking/tobacco, fast food, and alcohol abuse to your list.

Some perceived evidence that nicotine might actually limit the spread and contraction rates. Enough so that a clinical trial was started in November 2020 with an expected end date of Dec 2021.

A computational insight of the improved nicotine binding with ACE2-SARS-CoV-2 complex with its clinical impact

Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19 Infection - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

 

[AthensVol2007]

Would you prefer having those pathogens trapped on the mask or in their lungs or nasal passages?

So you think those pathogens touching their nose and mouth all day never get through? Does your air filter in your house catch everything?

 

[AM64]

So you think those pathogens touching their nose and mouth all day never get through? Does your air filter in your house catch everything?

Of course, some gets through, but better only some than all of it getting through. Plastic wrap would make a great protective mask ... except for one little thing.

 

[DuckInAPen]

Because the CDC said so? That’s good enough for me; they’ve surely been a bastion of consistency and honesty throughout this entire thing.

I didn't ask you to trust the CDC; I merely explained my basis for believing my previous assertion. As I said, I'm willing to retract that assertion if it's been disproved.

[EDIT] The CDC will doubtless emerge from this pandemic greatly diminished in the respect accorded to it by the general public. Still, I think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the scientific knowledge it disseminates and the policy guidance it issues, and it's on the basis of that distinction that I'm still inclined to believe what I asserted above, unless someone here demonstrates its falsity.

 

[Septic]

It is when a UF alum spends his entire non-working hours on an opponents message board

He may be a POS filthy gator, but he's our POS filthy gator.

 

[NEO]

So we now have the Delta plus variant.

I suddenly feel the need to watch Loki again.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The distasteful nature of human behavior lately is really starting to wear on my hope. Thanks.

I was at that point last April when I saw the toilet paper run out, the people were screaming about masks and when they cancelled Easter.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Exactly. And I am not a saint in these areas by any means and have room for improvement. I also understand it is tougher for some people than others. But let's be honest, people that are overweight are more susceptible to Covid complications, heart disease, overall mental well-being, etc. They also put a significant strain on our health care system. But we just ignore the elephant and criticize the unvaccinated?

Maybe the next step is to mandate people lose weight, quit smoking and stop drinking.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

(I'll reply in two parts, since I don't know how to interpolate without disrupting the "quote" function.)

Yes, I am of that belief, because that's the message that was published by the CDC. I admit that after a cursory search online I was unable to find a satisfactory explanation of why this should be so. Perhaps one of our resident scientists can explain the mechanism at work -- or, if this idea has subsequently been disproved, I'm happy to retract that portion of what I wrote above. (I've devised a few hypotheses of my own, but I won't share them here, lest I add to the cacophony of disinformation that attends discussion of this general topic.)

My goodness... it amazes me that at this point, we still have people taking the CDCs recommendations as gospel when they have moved the goalposts so much.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Some perceived evidence that nicotine might actually limit the spread and contraction rates. Enough so that a clinical trial was started in November 2020 with an expected end date of Dec 2021.

A computational insight of the improved nicotine binding with ACE2-SARS-CoV-2 complex with its clinical impact

Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19 Infection - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

The sad thing is that we may see nicotine being approved as a treatment for COVID before we see Ivermectin or HCQ or any other experimental treatment.

 

[DuckInAPen]

I believe masks do very little in the grand scheme and are overall pointless, so in my opinion, an immunocompromised individual isn’t getting much protection from them.

However, others insist they work and are necessary, therefore if they do work, an immunocompromised person wearing one should be “protected” or their chances minimized of inhaling the virus, regardless if I have one on myself.

That's what I suspected -- thanks for stating it explicitly. It seems to me, then, that your assertion that the immunocompromised can be kept safe by masking was made in bad faith. Or have I misunderstood?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That's what I suspected -- thanks for stating it explicitly. It seems to me, then, that your assertion that the immunocompromised can be kept safe by masking was made in bad faith. Or have I misunderstood?

Masks are marginally better than nothing, but no where near the panacea that most on the left would advocate, either. The truth is in the middle.

Now having said that, if a person doesn't wear a mask, I don't think it is such a violation or safety hazard that someone would need to be thrown out of a building or event, but at the same time, as a matter of common courtesy, if a location ask for masks, then they have the right to ask people to wear them.

The issue I have is when we start using the threat of force of even extreme cases law enforcement to enforce these rules. The masks are no where near that effective to get that serious about the matter. if someone comes in to an establishment without a mask, it isn't the end of the civilized world.

 

[DuckInAPen]

My goodness... it amazes me that at this point, we still have people taking the CDCs recommendations as gospel when they have moved the goalposts so much.

Who's taking the CDC's recommendations as gospel? Not me, if you read more carefully what I actually wrote.

 

[AM64]

Masks are marginally better than nothing, but no where near the panacea that most on the left would advocate, either. The truth is in the middle.

Now having said that, if a person doesn't wear a mask, I don't think it is such a violation or safety hazard that someone would need to be thrown out of a building or event, but at the same time, as a matter of common courtesy, if a location ask for masks, then they have the right to ask people to wear them.

The issue I have is when we start using the threat of force of even extreme cases law enforcement to enforce these rules. The masks are no where near that effective to get that serious about the matter. if someone comes in to an establishment without a mask, it isn't the end of the civilized world.

Generically speaking that's probably still underrating a lot of masks. The real thing thing (sometimes labeled respirators) like N-95s are likely very effective when worn and handled correctly.

 

[AshG]

Raise your hand if you've had a mask that actually fit right, especially while talking or moving your head around.

I didn't think so. Me either.

Having seen the aerosol dispersal studies from CU Boulder, I believe masks are ok for preventing directional spray. But when you inhale you're going to be sucking in air around the edges if it's not sealed right.

My favorite right now is the shema97 from HelmetFitting. Lightweight, easy to breathe in, fits well around my nose. If I absolutely have to wear a mask and don't have any other option, that's my go to.

 

[RockyTop85]

Generically speaking that's still probably still underrating a lot of masks. The real thing thing (sometimes labeled respirators) like N-95s are likely very effective when worn and handled correctly.

I posted a study in the covid thread that supported a finding that masks were effective in situations with low viral load environments (outdoors, social distancing, etc) but that their efficacy diminished in situations with higher viral load (indoors). The better the mask, the higher the level of exposure that it could tolerate.

A lot of the CDC guidance that people question makes more sense if you think about it in terms of limiting your quantity of exposure to virus particles. Early on, there were theories that exposure to higher quantities of virus might affect the course of the illness. I haven’t kept up with whether there has been any further study of that, but it seems like it may be the operating theory at CDC.

For example, if exposure to higher viral loads makes you more likely to get infected, that could explain why Delta, a more prolific strain of the virus, can override the vaccine.
If that’s the case, then asking people who have been vaccinated to wear a mask (which will then lower the viral load they’re exposed to in a given situation) makes sense to limit breakthrough infection.
I don’t know that that’s what they’re basing guidance off of or not. It may have been disproven at some point. But the guidance makes sense if you think about it in that context rather than thinking that some precaution is no better than no precaution at all.

 

[AM64]

I posted a study in the covid thread that supported a finding that masks were effective in situations with low viral load environments (outdoors, social distancing, etc) but that their efficacy diminished in situations with higher viral load (indoors). The better the mask, the higher the level of exposure that it could tolerate.

A lot of the CDC guidance that people question makes more sense if you think about it in terms of limiting your quantity of exposure to virus particles. Early on, there were theories that exposure to higher quantities of virus might affect the course of the illness. I haven’t kept up with whether there has been any further study of that, but it seems like it may be the operating theory at CDC.

For example, if exposure to higher viral loads makes you more likely to get infected, that could explain why Delta, a more prolific strain of the virus, can override the vaccine.
If that’s the case, then asking people who have been vaccinated to wear a mask (which will then lower the viral load they’re exposed to in a given situation) makes sense to limit breakthrough infection.
I don’t know that that’s what they’re basing guidance off of or not. It may have been disproven at some point. But the guidance makes sense if you think about it in that context rather than thinking that some precaution is no better than no precaution at all.

I guess the point I've been picking up after reading some newer scientific articles tonight is that there's a bit of discrepancy between scientific groups and what aerosol means, and that the covid virus is always bound to droplets but those can vary significantly in size. The bigger ones from sneezes and coughs don't remain in the air, and masks can block them because of the droplet size. The ones that are smaller - perhaps from how they are produced or from evaporation linger in the air longer and are passed through a coarse filter easier but can be dispersed with ventilation. For anybody that's played with cars - carburetors and fuel injection - you know it doesn't take much to screw up the process of creating an aerosol; and the human respiratory tract probably isn't nearly as efficient as either of those two devices.

The key still seems to be viral load in the air ... more sources more output. All the studies pointed out that masks used correctly in medical settings work pretty well. Makes sense - stay out of crowds (particularly where air isn't exchanged well) and put a boundary (a good mask) between you and others. The keys are going to be time of exposure, distance from the sources, number of sources, and shielding - keeping in mind the eyes also drain into the nasal passages. Big spaces generally mean better distribution and less dense viral concentration - air flow and source count kept constant.