*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (18 Viewers)

[The General]

This thread has turned unreadable at this point (and has been for some time). What was a great resource in the past has become an exercise in futility.

I only read every few days to once a week or so, usually after a few pages have built up.

Typically goes like this: A study or article is posted that I will not spend the time to read that is some variation of the vax is killing people, is ineffective etc. sometimes with bonus tinges of conspiracy theory sprinkled in.

That article slowly gets dismantled or explained by other posters.

A few days later this process resets.

The thread is pretty useful (and can be entertaining) for this alone. Lots of other good info in here as well.

 

[Scoresman]

This article pretty much sums up my view on mask wearing. I don’t see why this should elicit any kind of negative response from anybody.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/10/1155...-still-mask-in-forever-three-experts-weigh-in

The guy quoted in the article says he plans on wearing a mask forever. Is that your plan?

Probably yes, but keep in mind I don't currently wear masks everywhere. I think when people are surprised about continued mask usage they assume people wear them everywhere. I'll probably settle into the following routine.

- Airports and airplanes forever. The worst thing is getting sick while traveling. This one's a no-brainer.
- Public transportation probably forever.
- Grocery stores and similar crowded places during flu/cold season or if COVID ever gets anymore peaks.
- I generally won't be wearing one anywhere outside unless it's an extremely crowded situation.

What the pandemic made me realize was that wearing a mask is such a no brainer in comparison to getting colds/flus at the rate I used to. It's not even just about COVID anymore. It sucks to get sick, period, and wearing a mask in the situations above is such a minor inconvenience in comparison. The tradeoff is so worth it.

If I felt it waa a minor inconveniece I might agree with you. However, it is a major inconvenience to me.

How so? How is a mask more inconvenient than being sick?

A lot of people say the same thing. Which is fine. Some people may have asthma or other conditions that make breathing a bit more difficult. So masks are a bigger deal for them. It's all about weighing the inconvenience of the mask vs. your own risk of getting sick.

For me, I usually forget I even have it on. If you ever do see me driving alone with my mask, it's because I forgot to take it off when I left wherever I just was.

 

[Scoresman]

i’m sorry to laugh at this one but “physically hurt my ears” is a phrase i have never heard uttered before.

I've had bad fitting masks that did this.

 

[Schmeabs]

i’m sorry to laugh at this one but “physically hurt my ears” is a phrase i have never heard uttered before.

I've had bad fitting masks that did this.

The masks I wore pulled too tight on my ears so you are correct they were not fitted well. Most of the masks I wore were purchased on Amazon and despite attempting to get larger sizes they were always uncomfortable.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And yes, there is a difference between "possible COVID treatment" and "approved COVID treatment". I have YET to see a study where ivermectin was given as the sole treatment. It was ALWAYS given as part of a cocktail of drugs VERY early on. So was remdesivir. NEITHER have EVER qualified as "approved COVID treatment" on their own...both were part of a cocktail treatment that had mixed results at best.

FTR, Remdesivir has been studied on its own.

To be clear....my "so was remdesivir" comment was to the "part of a cocktail of drugs" comment I also made. Was remdesivir ever studied as its own treatment alone? Missed that if it was and apologies.

ACTT-1 studied it in combination with other meds for hospitalized patients according to standards-of-care, but only a minority received other stuff, besides oxygen.

During the study, 373 patients (35.6% of the 1048 patients in the as-treated population) received hydroxychloroquine and 241 (23.0%) received a glucocorticoid (Table S3).

PINETREE studied remdesivir in nonhospitalized patients vs. placebo.

Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain.

METHODS​

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19–related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28.

RESULTS​

A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P=0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19–related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS​

Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952. opens in new tab; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12. opens in new tab.)

 

[The Commish]

And yes, there is a difference between "possible COVID treatment" and "approved COVID treatment". I have YET to see a study where ivermectin was given as the sole treatment. It was ALWAYS given as part of a cocktail of drugs VERY early on. So was remdesivir. NEITHER have EVER qualified as "approved COVID treatment" on their own...both were part of a cocktail treatment that had mixed results at best.

FTR, Remdesivir has been studied on its own.

To be clear....my "so was remdesivir" comment was to the "part of a cocktail of drugs" comment I also made. Was remdesivir ever studied as its own treatment alone? Missed that if it was and apologies.

ACTT-1 studied it in combination with other meds for hospitalized patients according to standards-of-care, but only a minority received other stuff, besides oxygen.

During the study, 373 patients (35.6% of the 1048 patients in the as-treated population) received hydroxychloroquine and 241 (23.0%) received a glucocorticoid (Table S3).

PINETREE studied remdesivir in nonhospitalized patients vs. placebo.

Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain.

METHODS​

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19–related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28.

RESULTS​

A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P=0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19–related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS​

Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952. opens in new tab; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12. opens in new tab.)

Missed the second one when it happened. Thanks!

 

[LawFitz]

PINETREE studied remdesivir in nonhospitalized patients vs. placebo.

Funded by Gilead Sciences

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

[Gilead] inked an agreement to supply the European Union with its drug remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19—a deal potentially worth more than $1 billion. Two weeks later, on 22 October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved remdesivir for use against the pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in the United States—the first drug to receive that status.

But both decisions baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir's worth. At best, one large, well-designed study found remdesivir modestly reduced the time to recover from COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with severe illness. A few smaller studies found no impact of treatment on the disease whatsoever. Then, on 15 October [2020]—in this month's decidedly unfavorable news for Gilead—the fourth and largest controlled study delivered what some believed was a coup de grâce: The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Solidarity trial showed that remdesivir does not reduce mortality or the time COVID-19 patients take to recover.

Questions have also arisen about the potential of remdesivir to do harm. WHO has a regular overview of possible adverse drug events related to COVID-19 treatments. In late August it noted a disproportionately high number of reports of liver and kidney problems in patients receiving remdesivir compared with patients receiving other drugs for COVID-19. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also announced this month that its safety committee had started a review to assess reports of acute kidney injuries in some patients taking remdesivir.

the agreement with Gilead locks EU members into a price of about $2400 for a full course of remdesivir

Trust the Science (of Fraudci, NIH, FDA)!!!

The first rule of classical medicine was Do No Harm. The first rule of modern medicine is Return Shareholder Value.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

yet another timely post from YLE:

Do masks work?

On my way back from Turkey, and there’s nothing quite like international travel to help put things into perspective.

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

 

[Scoresman]

yet another timely post from YLE:

Do masks work?

On my way back from Turkey, and there’s nothing quite like international travel to help put things into perspective.

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

Sometimes I feel like she reads this thread....

 

[Doug B]

Masks make it difficult to breathe and they physically hurt my ears.

Though I masked religiously for two years, I feel your pain (bah-dum-CHEEE) with the ear thing. Not with all masks, but many.

With cloth masks, I could inexpensively try out different kinds and find some that were easy on my ears. Eventually, my workplace provided some awesome ones that I leaned on for over a year.

Once they started saying it had to be N95s or don't bother (early 2022) ... I got into a bit of a pickle. N95s were still hard to source locally, and I didn't want to spend the money on a bunch of brands ordered blindly online just for testers. Got lucky that the Louisiana state mask mandate ended in March 2022 and routine masking in public just started fading away locally.

By mid-summer last year, our local Lowe's started carrying some soft N95s with silicone face seals and behind-the-head elastic (which saves the ears). They ended up being just the thing. I bought a few then and still keep some in the car for when my wife or I need a mask unexpectedly.

 

[Doug B]

Sometimes I feel like she reads this thread....

Remember, someone here on FBGs -- that participated in this thread from time to time -- knows her well in real life. Can probably search the thread for "Katelyn Jetelina" and find which FBG it was.

EDIT: Zegras11 knew her as a kid in his neighborhood.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Oh look, another conspiracy theory turned into FACT...

Landmark Study Vindicates Everyone Who Touted Natural Immunity to COVID-19

For years, the powers that be, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House, and the press, dismissed the idea of taking natural immunity into account when debating vaccine mandates and vaccine passports.

They were wrong, so much so that even the mainstream media are having to admit it.

Past Covid infection as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

www.nbcnews.com

The elites were wrong, and they destroyed countless lives in the process. Worse, they wanted to keep how wrong they were a secret. This kind of study could have been done two years ago to bring clarity to the situation. In fact, Israel did a similar study way back in 2021 that gave nearly the same results. It was ignored while the [Federal Govt] and its press allies continued to push the need for vaccine mandates and vaccine passports.

How many people lost their jobs over that decision? How many people missed time with family members they’ll never get back because those family members died alone? How many people were booted out of the military for failing to get a vaccine they didn’t need? The number of horrible outcomes brought on by [Fed Govt], Fauci, and others refusing to acknowledge natural immunity is too long to list. The harm was immeasurable.

This is so obvious and just needed common sense to realize yet we had several people in here screaming bloody murder that is wasnt the case.

@IC FBGCav you have been vindicated.

There is no vindication. I just want truth.

 

[LawFitz]

There is no vindication. I just want truth

Absolutely

Do you think we've received it from NIH and FDA the last three years in the most meaningful moments?

 

[fatness]

yet another timely post from YLE:

Do masks work?

On my way back from Turkey, and there’s nothing quite like international travel to help put things into perspective.

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

Well let's see what some of her findings are.

• People wear them at different frequencies. The more someone wears a mask, the less likely they are to get an infection. (And, vice versa).

Multiple studies showed that masks help protect the wearer against SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., reduce the number of particles inhaled by someone). Also, masks reduced the number of particles emitted by a person. One study found that “surgical masks and KN95 reduce outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74%.”
The details mattered, though:

• Filter (i.e. type of mask)
• Size of infectious disease particles
• Fit

For example, surgical masks work best against droplets. They can have aerosol impact but leak a lot. Cloth masks work for droplets too, but really don’t do much for aerosols. N95s are best, curbing spread via droplets and aerosols.

Tightly controlled environments are different from the real world. We’ve seen this in several studies during the pandemic:

• People don’t wear them, even if recommended.
• People wear them at different frequencies. The more someone wears a mask, the less likely they are to get an infection. (And, vice versa).
• People adapt masks. Using two surgical masks worked better than one mask. Tying the strings on a surgical mask increased effectiveness.

Even if masks only reduce the risk of transmission for each individual by a small fraction, when a community masks, those small effects compound exponentially across a population, making a big dent in cases. Just like compounding interest—a small change in the percentage makes a big difference down the road.

 

[fatness]

By your logic, we would never be able to ask difficult and inconvenient, but necessary questions. Sorry, but he noted Covid as his suspected cause with a question mark. Everyone who has lost or loses a loved one to SADS, turbo cancer, or any other sudden onset 2021+ sickness should be wondering about vax status and potential role in the matter.

I've got a suggestion for you, GB. You're not getting your questions answered here, but there are better ways to get them answered. Read your local obituaries, which seldom list cause of death out of respect for the recently-deceased. Contact the family members of the deceased and ask them why the obituaties hid their vaccination status, and whether they were vaccinated or not.

Or, if you're up for a day outdoors, go to local cemeteries, get some fresh air in your lungs and exercise for your legs, see who's getting buried that day, and pin down their family members on whether their loved one was vaccinated or not.

In other words, since you deeply care about this, do your own research.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

yet another timely post from YLE:

Do masks work?

On my way back from Turkey, and there’s nothing quite like international travel to help put things into perspective.

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

If masks actually worked well, we wouldn't need scores of studies to tease out small effects. Think back to the vaccines and how you didn't need to look at p-values to tell that they were effective. The basic histograms were completely definitive with no hypothesis testing necessary.

If your prior was "masks don't hurt and maybe they do a tiny amount of good, but they're not very helpful and not worth worrying about," the accumulated evidence to date lines up with exactly what you'd expect to see: a handful of studies showing modest effectiveness and a bunch of studies showing none. You expect inconclusive hypothesis testing when you're looking for small effects using under-powered methods. This is where meta analyses help out, by forcing us to look at the totality of the evidence and preventing us from cherry-picking.

 

[Battersbox]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

 

[LawFitz]

By your logic, we would never be able to ask difficult and inconvenient, but necessary questions. Sorry, but he noted Covid as his suspected cause with a question mark. Everyone who has lost or loses a loved one to SADS, turbo cancer, or any other sudden onset 2021+ sickness should be wondering about vax status and potential role in the matter.

I've got a suggestion for you, GB. You're not getting your questions answered here, but there are better ways to get them answered. Read your local obituaries, which seldom list cause of death out of respect for the recently-deceased. Contact the family members of the deceased and ask them why the obituaties hid their vaccination status, and whether they were vaccinated or not.

Or, if you're up for a day outdoors, go to local cemeteries, get some fresh air in your lungs and exercise for your legs, see who's getting buried that day, and pin down their family members on whether their loved one was vaccinated or not.

In other words, since you deeply care about this, do your own research.

Weird how you like to call others ghouls. Classic projection, I suppose. All good, I'll add you to my ignore list. Good luck with your next round of booster roulette.

 

[RCon]

I can't help but notice that a lot of folks are conflating "masks are/aren't helpful" with "mask mandates are/aren't helpful". It should be fairly obvious that the effectiveness of mandates for anything are dependent on whether people actually follow the mandates (in part determined by whether there are consequences for not following a mandate, of course).

 

[AAABatteries]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

I think the pro-mask/mandate people over inflate the number of anti-mask/mandate people and vice versa. I think the vast majority don’t give a ****. Not sure I’m willing to buy the bolded but maybe your “large subset” number is vastly different than mine.

I’ll reiterate again something I’ve said for a couple years now - Covid has threaded the needle by being just severe enough to be a major concern but not deadly enough to warrant some policies - which in turn cause all these debates. If some of the scary IFR numbers from early on were reality then the vast majority of people would be fine with mask and vaccine mandates. For that reason I think it’s a little disingenuous of people to focus on whether mandates should be allowed but rather we should focus on if we should implement them for this pandemic. And it shouldn’t be some morality check.

My 2 cents is they aren’t warranted in this instance but I’m cool if private entities want to implement them still.

 

[The Commish]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

On the same page with your first thought and those two sentences. The rest is justifying one side of a coin. Reality is, "mask efficacy" is never going to be a thing because of the dozens of factors that go into them. At best you're going to get a logic scale from worst to best being:

no mask >>> improperly fitting mask made of crap materials >>> properly fitting mask made of crap materials/improperly fitting mask made of good materials >>> properly fitting mask made of good materials.

 

[Battersbox]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

On the same page with your first thought and those two sentences. The rest is justifying one side of a coin. Reality is, "mask efficacy" is never going to be a thing because of the dozens of factors that go into them. At best you're going to get a logic scale from worst to best being:

no mask >>> improperly fitting mask made of crap materials >>> properly fitting mask made of crap materials/improperly fitting mask made of good materials >>> properly fitting mask made of good materials.

I'm not justifying one side of a coin. People can mask, or not, as they see fit.

People should not impose upon others whether they should mask, or not, as they see fit.

If you think that's justifying one argument or the other, perhaps you should look inward.

 

[Battersbox]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

I think the pro-mask/mandate people over inflate the number of anti-mask/mandate people and vice versa. I think the vast majority don’t give a ****. Not sure I’m willing to buy the bolded but maybe your “large subset” number is vastly different than mine.

I’ll reiterate again something I’ve said for a couple years now - Covid has threaded the needle by being just severe enough to be a major concern but not deadly enough to warrant some policies - which in turn cause all these debates. If some of the scary IFR numbers from early on were reality then the vast majority of people would be fine with mask and vaccine mandates. For that reason I think it’s a little disingenuous of people to focus on whether mandates should be allowed but rather we should focus on if we should implement them for this pandemic. And it shouldn’t be some morality check.

My 2 cents is they aren’t warranted in this instance but I’m cool if private entities want to implement them still.

Yes, private entities should implement them if that's what they want.

Public school districts are another matter.

 

[AAABatteries]

Public school districts are another matter.

Yep, I agree. For this pandemic.

 

[The Commish]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

On the same page with your first thought and those two sentences. The rest is justifying one side of a coin. Reality is, "mask efficacy" is never going to be a thing because of the dozens of factors that go into them. At best you're going to get a logic scale from worst to best being:

no mask >>> improperly fitting mask made of crap materials >>> properly fitting mask made of crap materials/improperly fitting mask made of good materials >>> properly fitting mask made of good materials.

I'm not justifying one side of a coin. People can mask, or not, as they see fit.

People should not impose upon others whether they should mask, or not, as they see fit.

If you think that's justifying one argument or the other, perhaps you should look inward.

No...that part's not....as I said clearly...agree 100% with the first thought/two sentences. It's the rest I was referring to. Not sure what "looking inward" would do to help your comments though...that's a head scratcher. Reality is, this country is pretty self serving and sheepish. That's not a good combo. It leads to people being triggered by the suggestion of mask mandates and people being triggered that others can't understand their personal decision. Two sides of the same triggered coin best I can see.

 

[MTskibum]

According to a study published by Journal of the American College of Cardiology earlier this week, being vaccinated when catching covid reduces the chance of a major cardiac event by 40% compared to being unvaccinated.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972207601X?via=ihub

If you want an easy to read article on this study. I sugest reading the below, it was written by beth mole, a phd microbiologist who does a good job of dissecting the studies in away that the layman can read it.

Unvaccinated more likely to have heart attack, stroke after COVID, study finds

Being fully vaccinated reduced the risk by about 41 percent.

arstechnica.com

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I’ll reiterate again something I’ve said for a couple years now - Covid has threaded the needle by being just severe enough to be a major concern but not deadly enough to warrant some policies - which in turn cause all these debates.

This touches on one of my pet theories of the pandemic. If you had asked the average person in 2019 what a global pandemic would look like, they would probably have described something out of movies and books like The Stand, where civilization was basically brought to its knees. So I think a lot of people, especially those in rural areas, looked around during the early months of the pandemic and didn't see a whole lot in their lives that looked different. They didn't know a ton of people who got Covid, and those who did had relatively mild symptoms and then got better. (By contrast, while NYC didn't experience widespread social breakdown, a lot of the people I know who were living there at the time saw Covid's effects up close and were profoundly traumatized by the experience.)

So to your point, if Covid had been deadlier -- and thank God it wasn't -- people wouldn't have been able to dismiss it. And if it had been milder, it probably would have proceeded similar to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, where large numbers of Americans got sick but the death toll wasn't that high and most of us went about our business. Or to put it another way, the fact that 1M Americans have died from this is staggering, but because it happened in slow motion, it's easier to miss the impact

 

[Battersbox]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

On the same page with your first thought and those two sentences. The rest is justifying one side of a coin. Reality is, "mask efficacy" is never going to be a thing because of the dozens of factors that go into them. At best you're going to get a logic scale from worst to best being:

no mask >>> improperly fitting mask made of crap materials >>> properly fitting mask made of crap materials/improperly fitting mask made of good materials >>> properly fitting mask made of good materials.

I'm not justifying one side of a coin. People can mask, or not, as they see fit.

People should not impose upon others whether they should mask, or not, as they see fit.

If you think that's justifying one argument or the other, perhaps you should look inward.

No...that part's not....as I said clearly...agree 100% with the first thought/two sentences. It's the rest I was referring to. Not sure what "looking inward" would do to help your comments though...that's a head scratcher. Reality is, this country is pretty self serving and sheepish. That's not a good combo. It leads to people being triggered by the suggestion of mask mandates and people being triggered that others can't understand their personal decision. Two sides of the same triggered coin best I can see.

Perhaps It's head scratching to you because you harbor persistent thoughts that future mandates might be justified even absent any tangible proof (thus far) they are a net benefit? I don't know what you're thinking (nor do I care, it doesn't matter).
Someone upthread asked what any harm could be if people choose to wear masks individually. I was simply suggesting that the continuing presence of masks could embolden a segment of the population who want to push for future mandates. That's a potential harm since there is nothing conclusive on their net benefit to this point--the data is messy and inconclusive. For that reason, the status quo should absolutely be the default (no mandates).

 

[Doug B]

Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

@Battersbox , can you post the name of one of these districts, or at least the state/metro-area that it's in? I'd like to read more about this, and I don't mind looking for a link if I have something to go on.

 

[Battersbox]

Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

@Battersbox , can you post the name of one of these districts, or at least the state/metro-area that it's in? I'd like to read more about this, and I don't mind looking for a link if I have something to go on.

I knew I'd heard Philly. Quick search returned this:

Philly schools are once again mask-optional after 2-week mandate

The district is one of just a few in the U.S. to require masks periodically this school year. Nearby Camden City School District also started the year with a mask mandate.

whyy.org

**To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago**

 

[Battersbox]

A better more comprehensive link:

More US schools institute mask mandates as COVID cases rise

More schools -- including in Massachusetts and Michigan -- are implementing mask mandates as COVID-19 cases rise across the country.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Scoresman]

I'm not in favor of mandates but it's not surprising seeing some schools still holding on to them. Kids are disease factories. I couldn't imagine being a teacher these days.

 

[Doug B]

Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

@Battersbox , can you post the name of one of these districts, or at least the state/metro-area that it's in? I'd like to read more about this, and I don't mind looking for a link if I have something to go on.

I knew I'd heard Philly. Quick search returned this:

Philly schools are once again mask-optional after 2-week mandate

The district is one of just a few in the U.S. to require masks periodically this school year. Nearby Camden City School District also started the year with a mask mandate.

whyy.org

**To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago**

I remember that -- it was a two-week thing after the holidays. I'll be curious if they do it next year.

EDIT: Your second link (ABC News) touches on the post-holiday Philly mandate indirectly (as "... districts in ... Pennsylvania") and in a few other school districts in Boston, Ann Arbor MI, and Chicago. The one in Boston, Chelsea Public Schools, only had their post-holiday mandate in place for a week. Ann Arbor's was given a sunset date from jump (two weeks). And Chicago didn't have a mask mandate at all -- just an unenforced request to rapid test before returning to school post-holiday break.

All in all, kind of a thin article -- all factual, but shouldn't be read as something that's right now steamrolling through the country in public schools. I'd look at it as 99.9% of American public schools didn't bother with a post-holiday mask mandate at all.

 

[Doug B]

To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago

In the links, it looks like they were all pretty short-term, a week or two in January. no harbingers of "things to come".

 

[Battersbox]

To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago

In the links, it looks like they were all pretty short-term, a week or two in January. no harbingers of "things to come".

They were short term yes. But, the fact they happened in 2023 is insane in my opinion, And their existence absolutely increases the chances for more non rational interventions in the future.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago

In the links, it looks like they were all pretty short-term, a week or two in January. no harbingers of "things to come".

They were short term yes. But, the fact they happened in 2023 is insane in my opinion, And their existence absolutely increases the chances for more non rational interventions in the future.

You know what worries me the most about the future? When (and it is "when", not "if") the next pandemic hits, everyone on all sides will retreat to the same battle stations, but the virus may act completely differently. Imagine a hypothetical virus that impacts children the way Covid impacts seniors, and against which masks are completely useless.* We'll see one group saying, "This time, we absolutely can't close the schools again" and another saying, "We need to go back to wearing masks." And both of them could end up being disastrously wrong. Add to that the fact that the changing science will cause lots of people to simply throw up their hands and distrust public health officials and scientific experts even more than they already do.

* I have no idea if either of these are scientifically possible, but just go with it

 

[The Commish]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

On the same page with your first thought and those two sentences. The rest is justifying one side of a coin. Reality is, "mask efficacy" is never going to be a thing because of the dozens of factors that go into them. At best you're going to get a logic scale from worst to best being:

no mask >>> improperly fitting mask made of crap materials >>> properly fitting mask made of crap materials/improperly fitting mask made of good materials >>> properly fitting mask made of good materials.

I'm not justifying one side of a coin. People can mask, or not, as they see fit.

People should not impose upon others whether they should mask, or not, as they see fit.

If you think that's justifying one argument or the other, perhaps you should look inward.

No...that part's not....as I said clearly...agree 100% with the first thought/two sentences. It's the rest I was referring to. Not sure what "looking inward" would do to help your comments though...that's a head scratcher. Reality is, this country is pretty self serving and sheepish. That's not a good combo. It leads to people being triggered by the suggestion of mask mandates and people being triggered that others can't understand their personal decision. Two sides of the same triggered coin best I can see.

Perhaps It's head scratching to you because you harbor persistent thoughts that future mandates might be justified even absent any tangible proof (thus far) they are a net benefit? I don't know what you're thinking (nor do I care, it doesn't matter).
Someone upthread asked what any harm could be if people choose to wear masks individually. I was simply suggesting that the continuing presence of masks could embolden a segment of the population who want to push for future mandates. That's a potential harm since there is nothing conclusive on their net benefit to this point--the data is messy and inconclusive. For that reason, the status quo should absolutely be the default (no mandates).

Its head scratching because it doesn't make any logical sense for me to look inward about your assertions/comments. Not any more to it than that.

It's clear to me that a great many of you will continue to be triggered by masks. Whether it's because you're worried about what can possibly happen in the future or another person is worried that something isnt happening socially that they think should be is irrelevant to my initial comment which was those two sets of "concerns" are merely opposites sides of the same coin.

 

[Battersbox]

To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago

In the links, it looks like they were all pretty short-term, a week or two in January. no harbingers of "things to come".

They were short term yes. But, the fact they happened in 2023 is insane in my opinion, And their existence absolutely increases the chances for more non rational interventions in the future.

You know what worries me the most about the future? When (and it is "when", not "if") the next pandemic hits, everyone on all sides will retreat to the same battle stations, but the virus may act completely differently. Imagine a hypothetical virus that impacts children the way Covid impacts seniors, and against which masks are completely useless.* We'll see one group saying, "This time, we absolutely can't close the schools again" and another saying, "We need to go back to wearing masks." And both of them could end up being disastrously wrong. Add to that the fact that the changing science will cause lots of people to simply throw up their hands and distrust public health officials and scientific experts even more than they already do.

* I have no idea if either of these are scientifically possible, but just go with it

Public Health, and Public Health messaging, hasn't done us any favors for the future. You'll get no argument from me on that front.

 

[Battersbox]

It is silly to mock anyone who still masks everywhere. People can make their own choices, of course.

However, when someone asks what the potential harm is when people mask, I would only offer that there remains an uncomfortably large subset of the population who would jump at the chance to bring masking mandates back to the fore. You see the evidence daily--most notably when they refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for large-scale mask mandates having a positive effect are largely absent. The lack of conclusive evidence one way or the other on masking efficacy is enough to keep the embers of future mandates in their minds.
Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

On the same page with your first thought and those two sentences. The rest is justifying one side of a coin. Reality is, "mask efficacy" is never going to be a thing because of the dozens of factors that go into them. At best you're going to get a logic scale from worst to best being:

no mask >>> improperly fitting mask made of crap materials >>> properly fitting mask made of crap materials/improperly fitting mask made of good materials >>> properly fitting mask made of good materials.

I'm not justifying one side of a coin. People can mask, or not, as they see fit.

People should not impose upon others whether they should mask, or not, as they see fit.

If you think that's justifying one argument or the other, perhaps you should look inward.

No...that part's not....as I said clearly...agree 100% with the first thought/two sentences. It's the rest I was referring to. Not sure what "looking inward" would do to help your comments though...that's a head scratcher. Reality is, this country is pretty self serving and sheepish. That's not a good combo. It leads to people being triggered by the suggestion of mask mandates and people being triggered that others can't understand their personal decision. Two sides of the same triggered coin best I can see.

Perhaps It's head scratching to you because you harbor persistent thoughts that future mandates might be justified even absent any tangible proof (thus far) they are a net benefit? I don't know what you're thinking (nor do I care, it doesn't matter).
Someone upthread asked what any harm could be if people choose to wear masks individually. I was simply suggesting that the continuing presence of masks could embolden a segment of the population who want to push for future mandates. That's a potential harm since there is nothing conclusive on their net benefit to this point--the data is messy and inconclusive. For that reason, the status quo should absolutely be the default (no mandates).

Its head scratching because it doesn't make any logical sense for me to look inward about your assertions/comments. Not any more to it than that.

It's clear to me that a great many of you will continue to be triggered by masks. Whether it's because you're worried about what can possibly happen in the future or another person is worried that something isnt happening socially that they think should be is irrelevant to my initial comment which was those two sets of "concerns" are merely opposites sides of the same coin.

I'm not 'triggered', don't be juvenile. I just see things differently than you. Put me on ignore if you like. Or just go ahead and get your last word in and be done with it. We all know your m.o.

 

[The Commish]

To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago

In the links, it looks like they were all pretty short-term, a week or two in January. no harbingers of "things to come".

They were short term yes. But, the fact they happened in 2023 is insane in my opinion, And their existence absolutely increases the chances for more non rational interventions in the future.

You know what worries me the most about the future? When (and it is "when", not "if") the next pandemic hits, everyone on all sides will retreat to the same battle stations, but the virus may act completely differently. Imagine a hypothetical virus that impacts children the way Covid impacts seniors, and against which masks are completely useless.* We'll see one group saying, "This time, we absolutely can't close the schools again" and another saying, "We need to go back to wearing masks." And both of them could end up being disastrously wrong. Add to that the fact that the changing science will cause lots of people to simply throw up their hands and distrust public health officials and scientific experts even more than they already do.

* I have no idea if either of these are scientifically possible, but just go with it

Let the virus sort them out in that case. It's really a battle of common sense and understanding how the viruses work and how they spread

 

[fatness]

According to a study published by Journal of the American College of Cardiology earlier this week, being vaccinated when catching covid reduces the chance of a major cardiac event by 40% compared to being unvaccinated.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972207601X?via=ihub

If you want an easy to read article on this study. I sugest reading the below, it was written by beth mole, a phd microbiologist who does a good job of dissecting the studies in away that the layman can read it.

Unvaccinated more likely to have heart attack, stroke after COVID, study finds

Being fully vaccinated reduced the risk by about 41 percent.

arstechnica.com

Thanks, I was going to post the arstechnica article but you've already done it.
The title of the article is "Unvaccinated more likely to have heart attack, stroke after COVID, study finds".

 

[fatness]

Someone upthread asked what any harm could be if people choose to wear masks individually. I was simply suggesting that the continuing presence of masks could embolden a segment of the population who want to push for future mandates.

I may have asked that. And your reply shows no harm, just fear of what other people may think.

I'm in the process of watching "The Tudors" with my wife, and tonight we watched S02 E05. King Henry VIII has married Anne Boleyn who much of the population doesn't accept as a legitimate queen, and he's getting increasingly paranoid about reports of gossip, and of sermons and religious tracts denouncing her as an illegitimate queen. So he proposes new laws to Parliament decreeing that some of his children are the only lawful heirs to the crown, that only he and not the Pope is the head of the church of England, that any speech disagreeing with this is treason, that treason is punishable by death and asset forfeiture, and that all people in his realm must swear an oath agreeing to all the above or be guilty of treason. At that point my wife and I agreed "OK, he's gone from pissed-off and paranoid to over-the edge". He had such overwhelming fear of what people thought that he's become irrational.

Perhaps It's head scratching to you because you harbor persistent thoughts that future mandates might be justified even absent any tangible proof (thus far) they are a net benefit? I don't know what you're thinking (nor do I care, it doesn't matter).

Speculation about the thought process of another FBG seems similarly irrational.

Seriously, if I'm understanding what you have said correctly, you're afraid of other people choosing to wear masks.

 

[fatness]

You know what worries me the most about the future? When (and it is "when", not "if") the next pandemic hits, everyone on all sides will retreat to the same battle stations, but the virus may act completely differently. Imagine a hypothetical virus that impacts children the way Covid impacts seniors, and against which masks are completely useless.* We'll see one group saying, "This time, we absolutely can't close the schools again" and another saying, "We need to go back to wearing masks." And both of them could end up being disastrously wrong.

Which one of these 2 theoretical alternatives would cause the most harm?
If masks are useless and people wear them, what harm would it do?
If masks are vital and people refuse to wear them, what harm would that do?
I think that's what we're talking about.

 

[fatness]

Heck, there are still active mandates even today for select school districts around the country.

@Battersbox , can you post the name of one of these districts, or at least the state/metro-area that it's in? I'd like to read more about this, and I don't mind looking for a link if I have something to go on.

I knew I'd heard Philly. Quick search returned this:

Philly schools are once again mask-optional after 2-week mandate

The district is one of just a few in the U.S. to require masks periodically this school year. Nearby Camden City School District also started the year with a mask mandate.

whyy.org

**To be fair, looks like they lifted it a few weeks ago**

I remember that -- it was a two-week thing after the holidays. I'll be curious if they do it next year.

EDIT: Your second link (ABC News) touches on the post-holiday Philly mandate indirectly (as "... districts in ... Pennsylvania") and in a few other school districts in Boston, Ann Arbor MI, and Chicago. The one in Boston, Chelsea Public Schools, only had their post-holiday mandate in place for a week. Ann Arbor's was given a sunset date from jump (two weeks). And Chicago didn't have a mask mandate at all -- just an unenforced request to rapid test before returning to school post-holiday break.

All in all, kind of a thin article -- all factual, but shouldn't be read as something that's right now steamrolling through the country in public schools. I'd look at it as 99.9% of American public schools didn't bother with a post-holiday mask mandate at all.

Thank you.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You know what worries me the most about the future? When (and it is "when", not "if") the next pandemic hits, everyone on all sides will retreat to the same battle stations, but the virus may act completely differently. Imagine a hypothetical virus that impacts children the way Covid impacts seniors, and against which masks are completely useless.* We'll see one group saying, "This time, we absolutely can't close the schools again" and another saying, "We need to go back to wearing masks." And both of them could end up being disastrously wrong. Add to that the fact that the changing science will cause lots of people to simply throw up their hands and distrust public health officials and scientific experts even more than they already do.

* I have no idea if either of these are scientifically possible, but just go with it

There probably won't be another pandemic in any of our lifetimes. But if there is, I'm not worried about any of this stuff. I learned from this pandemic that I can manage a noisy information environment just fine on my own.

 

[Battersbox]

Someone upthread asked what any harm could be if people choose to wear masks individually. I was simply suggesting that the continuing presence of masks could embolden a segment of the population who want to push for future mandates.

I may have asked that. And your reply shows no harm, just fear of what other people may think.

I'm in the process of watching "The Tudors" with my wife, and tonight we watched S02 E05. King Henry VIII has married Anne Boleyn who much of the population doesn't accept as a legitimate queen, and he's getting increasingly paranoid about reports of gossip, and of sermons and religious tracts denouncing her as an illegitimate queen. So he proposes new laws to Parliament decreeing that some of his children are the only lawful heirs to the crown, that only he and not the Pope is the head of the church of England, that any speech disagreeing with this is treason, that treason is punishable by death and asset forfeiture, and that all people in his realm must swear an oath agreeing to all the above or be guilty of treason. At that point my wife and I agreed "OK, he's gone from pissed-off and paranoid to over-the edge". He had such overwhelming fear of what people thought that he's become irrational.

Perhaps It's head scratching to you because you harbor persistent thoughts that future mandates might be justified even absent any tangible proof (thus far) they are a net benefit? I don't know what you're thinking (nor do I care, it doesn't matter).

Speculation about the thought process of another FBG seems similarly irrational.

Seriously, if I'm understanding what you have said correctly, you're afraid of other people choosing to wear masks.

You're misunderstanding.

You asked what potential harm there could be from people masking, and I answered. Then, I showed a link which demonstrates there are still mandates in select places in 2023 which millions of school kids are forced to comply. I'm saying that a segment of people irrationally masking on a day to day basis makes these present and future mandates more likely to occur. Accepting harms (I think masking millions of kids in public is inherently harmful) for no proven benefit is stupid in my opinion. With that said, I'm hardly afraid of people masking. I maintain and have always maintained people should make their own decisions. Nonetheless, a potential harm of people masking in everyday life is that it emboldens the mask fanatics who would prefer we have more mandates.

If anyone should be compared to the paranoia of Henry VIII, it is those who continue to clamor for covering the faces of millions of kids all day long for a virus which doesn't even threaten thier well being.

 

[humpback]

In the links, it looks like they were all pretty short-term, a week or two in January. no harbingers of "things to come".

It's a slippery slope!?!

 

[Doug B]

... I showed a link which demonstrates there are still mandates in select places in 2023 which millions of school kids are forced to comply ...

Nit-picking, but: I didn't see where it was millions of kids. At least not from the links provided.

Read a few of those articles, and it looks like it was happening "all over the place" -- when in fact, the media picked up a few instances, crafted a story around them, and let the mental chips of their readers fall where they may. "It's EVERYWHERE!" is "newsworthy" and draws eyeballs.

 

[Battersbox]

... I showed a link which demonstrates there are still mandates in select places in 2023 which millions of school kids are forced to comply ...

Nit-picking, but: I didn't see where it was millions of kids. At least not from the links provided.

Read a few of those articles, and it looks like it was happening "all over the place" -- when in fact, the media picked up a few instances, crafted a story around them, and let the mental chips of their readers fall where they may. "It's EVERYWHERE!" is "newsworthy" and draws eyeballs.

Ok. Maybe it was hundreds of thousands. Doesn't really change the larger point which is that they are net harmful and unfair to a huge number of kids (in my opinion).
People continuing to mask in everyday life makes these and future mandates more likely simply by perpetuating the idea that they are needed on some level. I agree that it's probably not a huge effect on the macro attitude, but it has some influence.
With all that said, even if people masking does lead to more mandates (which I fully oppose), I STILL support people's right to wear them if it makes them more comfortable. I support people's rights to make their own decisions. I wish mandate advocates could say the same.

 

[Doug B]

I'm saying that a segment of people irrationally masking on a day to day basis makes these present and future mandates more likely to occur ... I maintain and have always maintained people should make their own decisions. Nonetheless, a potential harm of people masking in everyday life is that it emboldens the mask fanatics who would prefer we have more mandates.

The parts in red and blue are dissonant.

The parts in blue suggest that you would support active measures to discourage public masking. But I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask directly: Would you support active measures that discourage public masking in the U.S.?

And if yes, how does that square with "people making their own decisions"?

...

As an aside: Do you believe that Japan's Pre-COVID cultural customs about masking are intrinsically harmful to the public and therefore wrong?

...

I'm posting all of this as someone who rarely masks in public anymore: I really don't think you'll see, in the U.S., any kind of widespread public mask mandate in response to COVID again. A school district here, a workplace there, sure. County-wide or state-wide? Virtually impossible without a much-changed pathogen, but not with 2023-style COVID as we know it now.

Accordingly, you don't have to think of the 1-in-10,000 "forever maskers" in public as even having a hint of potential to bring about impingement upon your freedom. It's not going to happen.