The Vaccine Thread

[vertical_doug]

[QUOTE=Bobonli;1055224]

Two out of three non-peer reviewed articles. One thing we've learned from this pandemic is that anyone can rush to publish just about anything while relying on correlations to "prove' causation. I wear a mask 10 hours a day at work; I work in healthcare. And I can look around a room and see several/many people who contracted Covid despite wearing 2 masks and a face shield and maintaining those precautions "off duty." And I'm talking about recently, not the first weeks of the pandemic before we knew what was happening. The conclusions represented in literature do not match people's lived experiences. I'm not saying masks don't work. I am saying that they're only part of the puzzle. Staying the eff away from people appears to be the most effective method, followed by stay away from people.

Quarantining, BTW, only works if you are not doing it with others who are sick or can get sick from you. We learned that the hard way in NY.

I know from other subject areas, a lot of garbage is on the pre-print servers. (It may mostly be garbage)

[beeatnik]

The question with masks (cloth and surgical) is how good is imperfect protection? If you're a person surrounded by individuals who can form social bubbles and comply with all mitigations then it's reasonable to ascribe a high level of protection to mask usage. If you're a person who knows multiple people who were infected while wearing masks in higher risk settings, you may be more skeptical. Common sense is conditional.

I don't believe the average anti-masker understands or cares about the fine points of the issue. However, there is a trickle down effect in play, IMO. When mainstream media ignores or distorts (some of) "The Science" and decides to only amplify "establishment" messaging, it shouldn't be surprising that the other side promotes a "contrarian" POV. A few posts above have referenced (I think) that there are no Pandemic randomized controlled trials showing masks to be effective. And pre-pandemic mask studies were imperfect and inconclusive. So, there was debate at one point.

This guy makes a lot of sense:
vinay.jpg

Going back to the original question. How imperfect is imperfect? Or put another way how effective is effective. In July when California had a 20% positivity rate with 50k reported daily cases and near universal mask use, was the rate of infection lowered by 5%, 10%? Some mask advocates seem to believe we would have had 1M daily cases without mask mandates.

Epidemiological modeling aside, the Common Sense in me thinks the numbers in the CDC slide below should raise some questions:

cdcmasks.jpeg

50% (40-60%) source control and 25% (20-30%) personal protection? Do surveys show that the majority of the American public is aware of those rates of efficacy? Or does common sense tell them 80%, 90%; you protect me and I protect you. Does it matter? How many on this nice bike forum would buy a helmet that prevented TBI in only 20% of non-catastrophic impacts? If condoms were 50% effective in preventing HIV transmission how would AIDS activists tailor their messaging. Obviously respiratory infections don't follow the same harm reduction paradigms but common sense...

[jimcav]

[QUOTE=Bobonli;1055224]

Two out of three non-peer reviewed articles. One thing we've learned from this pandemic is that anyone can rush to publish just about anything while relying on correlations to "prove' causation. I wear a mask 10 hours a day at work; I work in healthcare. And I can look around a room and see several/many people who contracted Covid despite wearing 2 masks and a face shield and maintaining those precautions "off duty." And I'm talking about recently, not the first weeks of the pandemic before we knew what was happening. The conclusions represented in literature do not match people's lived experiences. I'm not saying masks don't work. I am saying that they're only part of the puzzle. Staying the eff away from people appears to be the most effective method, followed by stay away from people.

Quarantining, BTW, only works if you are not doing it with others who are sick or can get sick from you. We learned that the hard way in NY.

My only point in posting is that you, or someone else perhaps, asked about data and articles. Use PubMed if you want peer-reviewed.

Data are there. Use critical analysis skills to assess the models used, the analysis of the authors. I can't argue about your experience seeing co-workers getting ill, nor even guess at how well they and all those they were near adhered to distancing and masking, or the relative viral load they experienced at work, at home, at church, whatever.

If you work in healthcare, you obviously know there is a difference between a surgical mask and a N95 respirator, and an even bigger difference in a fit-tested vs not. None of that changes the fact that masks reduce transmission. The extent to which they reduce it is going to vary, because the type of masks, the fit, the adherence to use, the given aerosol load of virus, etc will vary.

[suspectdevice]

handlebars are discontinued
(oh is this the wrong thread?)

What’s the effing deal with “conservatives” being so damn mask-skeptical?

The amount of energy the mouthbreathers exert twisting up logic to suit their… goals? is astounding.

What is the goal, token Vsalon conservatives, about spreading fear and misinformation about something that is clearly prophylactic?

Is keeping people less-safe “freedom”?
Can you explain why you are anti-public health without clogging your arguments with cherry picked “facts”?

This massive churn of reactionary misinformation fascinates me.

[j44ke]

handlebars are discontinued
(oh is this the wrong thread?)

What’s the effing deal with “conservatives” being so damn mask-skeptical?

The amount of energy the mouthbreathers exert twisting up logic to suit their… goals? is astounding.

What is the goal, token Vsalon conservatives, about spreading fear and misinformation about something that is clearly prophylactic?

Is keeping people less-safe “freedom”?
Can you explain why you are anti-public health without clogging your arguments with cherry picked “facts”?

This massive churn of reactionary misinformation fascinates me.

Destabilization.

[gregl]

Destabilization.

Destabilization to benefit those who want power. Sow the seeds of doubt in an effort to erode democracy in favor of a white, male, elite, oligarchy. And before the sniping starts, I'm a white, male, registered Republican who has generally benefited from the existing hegemony. However, as someone who values fairness and integrity above all else, I don't fear a change to a more diverse democracy.

Greg

[fastupslowdown]

Reading that Canada now has a higher vaccination rate than both the U.S. and Israel now. Seems Spain has basically caught up with the U.S. as well. While we get credit for coming up with the vaccine the anti-vax sentiment in the u.s. is simply nuts We should be doing far better -Mike G

[Saab2000]

The US isn’t the only place with crazies. My sister-in-law is German and I asked her about vaccine hesitancy there and she said it’s comparable with the US. Sometimes the same reasons given and sometimes others.

We’ve got our own brand of idiocy here but idiocy isn’t unique to the US.

[fastupslowdown]

The US isn’t the only place with crazies. My sister-in-law is German and I asked her about vaccine hesitancy there and she said it’s comparable with the US. Sometimes the same reasons given and sometimes others.

We’ve got our own brand of idiocy here but idiocy isn’t unique to the US.

Yes in France the gilets are back, and Germany has their anti-vaxers, but its no where near as large as what's in the u.s.

[Sino]

It’s elementary, my dear. The disease is carried by aerosols. Those aerosols are emitted from three of the holes on your head. Cover them with a filter (MERV-13 not required) to minimize the risk of transmission.

The earth is round, gravity is a force to be reckoned with, and aerosol transmission reflects a modern understanding of aerosol science and allows physically appropriate explanation and intervention selection for infectious diseases.

Except that it's not. You all seem to live in a theoretical bubble where you completely ignore the real world.

Real life is not a lab test. When you factor in that the vast majority of masks being used are not medical quality, are not worn properly, people touch their faces much more, people reuse the masks, and so on, the efficacy basically goes to zero. In fact, just considering the increased face touching, there is a strong argument that in a real world setting like a grocery store for example, using an average mask will likely increase the spread of any contagion.

Not to mention that the majority of airflow in and out of a mask completely bypasses the masks from the sides. I'm not going to get into a fluid dynamics lesson, but any gas moves from high to low pressure in the most efficient path, which is absolutely not through a fabric.

Talk about elementary...

[Sino]

Yes in France the gilets are back, and Germany has their anti-vaxers, but its no where near as large as what's in the u.s.

Well, I haven't seen any 200,000 people anti-mandate demonstrations here in the US. Why do you say it's worse here? Is it just an assumption?

[fastupslowdown]

Well, I haven't seen any 200,000 people anti-mandate demonstrations here in the US. Why do you say it's worse here? Is it just an assumption?

vaccinations rates, suport in media and actions from politicians on the right

[Tom]

Well, I noticed I can smell the other people in the grocery store when I'm not wearing a mask.

[beeatnik]

handlebars are discontinued
(oh is this the wrong thread?)

What’s the effing deal with “conservatives” being so damn mask-skeptical?

The amount of energy the mouthbreathers exert twisting up logic to suit their… goals? is astounding.

What is the goal, token Vsalon conservatives, about spreading fear and misinformation about something that is clearly prophylactic?

Is keeping people less-safe “freedom”?
Can you explain why you are anti-public health without clogging your arguments with cherry picked “facts”?

This massive churn of reactionary misinformation fascinates me.

The US isn’t the only place with crazies. My sister-in-law is German and I asked her about vaccine hesitancy there and she said it’s comparable with the US. Sometimes the same reasons given and sometimes others.

We’ve got our own brand of idiocy here but idiocy isn’t unique to the US.

Let's talk about health and not politics, ie, to paraphrase a respected UK public health expert let's stop equating sars-cov-2 with measles.

At the risk of coming across as a representative for my Vsalon conservative pals (and an antivaxxer). it seems to me that what some perceive as, um, mental unsoundness is personal risk assessment within a dynamic health emergency. In the case of masks, there's a distinction between being pro-mask and pro-mask mandates. My feeling is that in places of high community transmission (LA's Inland Empire), party membership is not a good indicator of "prophylactic" mask use. Conversely, in a rural county, Mariposa, you'll find more resistance or lower compliance. These are residents of a county as large as Los Angeles but with a population 500-1000x smaller and where all 7 deaths were person to person or healthcare associated transmission, ie, "mouthbreathers" at the Kwik-e Mart not putting their neighbors at risk. And, yes, I understand community transmission but that's the perception. I'll risk the wrath of the mental health professionals by speculating that mask skeptics need to perceive the pandemic as a tangible phenomenon and benevolent public minded individuals see it in more abstract terms (disease everywhere!). It's kind of like voting. Is it symbolic (personal) or does every vote count (public). Also, was it really a surprise or unexpected that a small percentage of the American public or world (outside of Asia) would have an antipathy to face coverings?

https://www.mariposacounty.org/2422/...se-Information

And then there's Sweden. Comparable population to LA County, comparable cases per 1M population, 40% less deaths. What are the variables? Density, household size, healthcare access, trust in government, vitamin D levels, social distancing and mask use. LA and Sweden are on opposite ends in all those variables, except trust in government as compliance here has been universal. So, if density, social distancing and household size are the most important variables in Sweden limiting fatalities (compared to LA) outside of nursing homes, then the psychology of a mouthbreather in a rural county is more understandable. Sweden with a 40% lower rate of vaccination hasn't had a Covid fatality in a week; in the past 7 days in LA County there were 71 deaths.

https://www.businessinsider.com/covi...ed-them-2021-7

People living in Sweden previously told Insider that they were looked at strangely for wearing masks, and some said that they attracted abuse when they did. They said they were afraid because so few people were wearing masks, especially compared to other European countries.

And others told Insider they almost never wore one, but felt safe because other measures like distancing were widely employed.

As for vaccine hesitancy (again), if I were a previously infected person under 50, I'd think hard about getting vaccinated. Which is to say the decision wouldn't be automatic and the appeal to social good would be less compelling. If I were aware that the government reported CFR in the UK for 200k plus Delta cases is .028 in the unvaccinated under 50 and .026 for the vaccinated, I'd be even more focused on my personal calculus. Conversely, trusting the reported figures I'd be aware that deaths are "decoupling" and the vaccine has lowered fatalities in the over 50 demographic by a factor of 5 to 10. I could only conclude that my level of personal risk and risk to others is negligible (risk of transmission and risk of taking up a hospital bed/resource). Finally, it's easy to demonize (ya, that word again) Republicans but I think we can learn as much by understanding the most hesitant group of all (regardless of political affiliation), younger black males. The patronizing conclusion here is always, "they don't have access to vaccines due to structural racism." There's more to it than that. Much more.

Delta case numbers on pages 18 and 19
https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_19.pdf

[Sino]

Let's talk about health and not politics, ie, to paraphrase a respected UK public health expert let's stop equating sars-cov-2 with measles.

At the risk of coming across as a representative for my Vsalon conservative pals (and an antivaxxer). it seems to me that what some perceive as, um, mental unsoundness is personal risk assessment within a dynamic health emergency. In the case of masks, there's a distinction between being pro-mask and pro-mask mandates. My feeling is that in places of high community transmission (LA's Inland Empire), party membership is not a good indicator of "prophylactic" mask use. Conversely, in a rural county, Mariposa, you'll find more resistance or lower compliance. These are residents of a county as large as Los Angeles but with a population 500-1000x smaller and where all 7 deaths were person to person or healthcare associated transmission, ie, "mouthbreathers" at the Kwik-e Mart not putting their neighbors at risk. And, yes, I understand community transmission but that's the perception. I'll risk the wrath of the mental health professionals by speculating that mask skeptics need to perceive the pandemic as a tangible phenomenon and benevolent public minded individuals see it in more abstract terms (disease everywhere!). It's kind of like voting. Is it symbolic (personal) or does every vote count (public). Also, was it really a surprise or unexpected that a small percentage of the American public or world (outside of Asia) would have an antipathy to face coverings?

https://www.mariposacounty.org/2422/...se-Information

And then there's Sweden. Comparable population to LA County, comparable cases per 1M population, 40% less deaths. What are the variables? Density, household size, healthcare access, trust in government, vitamin D levels, social distancing and mask use. LA and Sweden are on opposite ends in all those variables, except trust in government as compliance here has been universal. So, if density, social distancing and household size are the most important variables in Sweden limiting fatalities (compared to LA) outside of nursing homes, then the psychology of a mouthbreather in a rural county is more understandable. Sweden with a 40% lower rate of vaccination hasn't had a Covid fatality in a week; in the past 7 days in LA County there were 71 deaths.

https://www.businessinsider.com/covi...ed-them-2021-7

People living in Sweden previously told Insider that they were looked at strangely for wearing masks, and some said that they attracted abuse when they did. They said they were afraid because so few people were wearing masks, especially compared to other European countries.

And others told Insider they almost never wore one, but felt safe because other measures like distancing were widely employed.

As for vaccine hesitancy (again), if I were a previously infected person under 50, I'd think hard about getting vaccinated. Which is to say the decision wouldn't be automatic and the appeal to social good would be less compelling. If I were aware that the government reported CFR in the UK for 200k plus Delta cases is .028 in the unvaccinated under 50 and .026 for the vaccinated, I'd be even more focused on my personal calculus. Conversely, trusting the reported figures I'd be aware that deaths are "decoupling" and the vaccine has lowered fatalities in the over 50 demographic by a factor of 5 to 10. I could only conclude that my level of personal risk and risk to others is negligible (risk of transmission and risk of taking up a hospital bed/resource). Finally, it's easy to demonize (ya, that word again) Republicans but I think we can learn as much by understanding the most hesitant group of all (regardless of political affiliation), younger black males. The patronizing conclusion here is always, "they don't have access to vaccines due to structural racism." There's more to it than that. Much more.

Delta case numbers on pages 18 and 19
https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_19.pdf

Reasonable post.

However, the extreme "with us or against us," attitude of this forum means that now you're labeled a crazy right wing extremist tin hat racist, just for raising the questions and pointing out common sense.

I love that someone actually already went full conspiracy theory that any questioning of virtually anything is a right wing plot to make a power grab. Classic.

[Sino]

vaccinations rates, suport in media and actions from politicians on the right

So...assumption then?

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[beeatnik]

Reasonable post.

However, the extreme "with us or against us," attitude of this forum means that now you're labeled a crazy right wing extremist tin hat racist, just for raising the questions and pointing out common sense.

I love that someone actually already went full conspiracy theory that any questioning of virtually anything is a right wing plot to make a power grab. Classic.

Remember the nice bikes loving cat who impugned my participation in this discussion? I guess he doesn't understand the nature of civil discourse. That would be fine if he didn't represent 90% of my friends and neighbors. So, as pointless as my participation here can feel, it's an outlet. Better to be insulted online than in real life. But it's tough to be at the local playground and not be able to contribute to healthy debate. Never thought I'd empathize with Republicans in the film industry or in Bay Area tech companies. Now I know better.

[johnmdesigner]

Reasonable post.

However, the extreme "with us or against us," attitude of this forum means that now you're labeled a crazy right wing extremist tin hat racist, just for raising the questions and pointing out common sense.

I love that someone actually already went full conspiracy theory that any questioning of virtually anything is a right wing plot to make a power grab. Classic.

The people who run this place are pretty nice to all the members allowing them to post about anything smart or stupid.
If you post online you should expect positive and negative comments.
You could try somewhere else but you’ll probably be ripped to shreds.

[Too Tall]

It is coals to Newcastle expressing my personal and very sincere appreciation.

That is all.

Wear a fuckin' mask if asked.

[Sino]

The people who run this place are pretty nice to all the members allowing them to post about anything smart or stupid.
If you post online you should expect positive and negative comments.
You could try somewhere else but you’ll probably be ripped to shreds.

Right, so freedom of speech (which I'll assume most people here would support) is great...until it's a different opinion, then it's either stupid or charity on behalf of the mods?

I expect healthy discussion. I don't expect, nor support, the majority of you all attacking and labeling people, marginalizing them and their opinions the very second anyone steps out of line. The sense of entitlement, and ignorance of said entitlement, is hilarious. You guys are the reason why people dislike cyclists and have a poor view of them as arrogant and elitist. Cyclists like myself have to constantly defend ourselves because of a few fools.

You exemplify exactly my point- a mindset of unwavering intolerance bordering on straight up fascism towards anything "other" than an extreme liberal stance.

Finally- Ripped to shreds? Lol. Passive aggressive much? How about you make a coherent counter argument? I fully invite you to do the ripping, hoss.