What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why is Biden Still Wearing a Mask? (1 Viewer)

Oh I’m sorry, I must have mistaken you for the partisan who said this:

What we should really be asking is why the Venn diagram of people railing against facemasks and the people refusing to take the vaccine are almost a single circle. Same circle has a single pervasive political leaning as well. There is a very serious problem with this mindset, and these are the folks that have made this mess far worse than it needed to be. 
Was that a personal attack on you that contained blatant lies? Or maybe an observation from a healthcare professional that's spent a very long year dealing with ignorance and political issues creating even worse problems in the midst of a worldwide catastrophe? And please oh please point out where I explicitly stated how you feel about issues that aren't being discussed in this thread, like censorship or CNN viewing? Did I state that you were a Newsmax devotee that is hoping to turn the US into an autocracy with Donald Trump at the helm?

Nope. Let's not get personal, huh?

 
Listen - I have no problem if you want to wear a mask.  Have at it.  It’s your choice and I couldn’t care less
Seems to me like you answered your question and reason for the thread. So time to lock the thread and move on?  

 
Typical lawyer, dodging the question.  And I didn’t cite anything as fact. You made that up in your own head.  I simply linked an article that touched on the subject.  
why did you link a study that says it cant be used to show causation on the subject you're discussing?  or would you rather just admit you didn't actually read it? 

 
Not quite.  I said I had no issue with Joe Schmo wearing a mask.  When the President does anything he is setting the tone for the rest of America.  Didn’t we learn that from Trump?  And then you get idiots like this.

https://twitter.com/TheFirstonTV/status/1390348065421332480?s=20
 
Agree with the bolded. So Doesn’t it then make sense for him to continue to lead by example until we have definite scientific reasoning that being vaccinated means you can’t spread it.  Currently we don’t, it’s not conclusive either way.  So lead by example and play it safe.  I asked this of Trump, so will for Biden too.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
why did you link a study that says it cant be used to show causation on the subject you're discussing?  or would you rather just admit you didn't actually read it? 
It was food for thought, nothing more nothing less.  But you’re deflecting - as usual.  You are the one who said, “If someone wears a mask but doesn't need it, there is no harm.”  Why don’t you answer the simple question that was asked of you.  Do you think that wearing masks harms children?  It’s an easy question, especially for such a smart lawyer like yourself.

 
Agree with the bolded. So Doesn’t it then make sense for him to continue to lead by example until we have definite scientific reasoning that being vaccinated means you can’t spread it.  Currently we don’t, it’s not conclusive either way.  So lead by example and play it safe.  I asked this of Trump, so will for Biden too.  
Once again, there is zero evidence to date that vaccinated people spread the virus.  And I’m not aware of any reputable scientist who has claimed that it’s likely.  Do you think by now we would have seen some evidence of this happening?  The evidence we do have is that these vaccines are more efficacious than we ever could have imagined.  I’m just sick of hearing stories of vaccinated runners being accosted for running outside without masks.  And yes it is happening.  Happened last week to a girl I know.

 
Once again, there is zero evidence to date that vaccinated people spread the virus.  And I’m not aware of any reputable scientist who has claimed that it’s likely.  Do you think by now we would have seen some evidence of this happening?  The evidence we do have is that these vaccines are more efficacious than we ever could have imagined.  I’m just sick of hearing stories of vaccinated runners being accosted for running outside without masks.  And yes it is happening.  Happened last week to a girl I know.
From my understanding it hasn’t been studied in-depth yet (or results of said study hasn’t been released to my knowledge) so that’s why it’s inconclusive. No one knows for sure.  The published vaccine studies have all focused on their efficacy not transmission. And for the record my personal feeling is it likely doesn’t. So I’m not fearful. But I think the president’s  being responsible here in continuing wearing one until we know.  
 

And as far as people being accosted for not wearing masks I hate that every bit as much as a do the people who are asked to wear a mask in a store and throw fits and attack or berate the staff.  It’s pure insanity both ways.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was food for thought, nothing more nothing less.  But you’re deflecting - as usual.  You are the one who said, “If someone wears a mask but doesn't need it, there is no harm.”  Why don’t you answer the simple question that was asked of you.  Do you think that wearing masks harms children?  It’s an easy question, especially for such a smart lawyer like yourself.
I don't think it does, but if i saw a valid peer-reviewed study that established causation i could change my mind.  but that isn't the topic, and when people resort to logical fallacies i usually dont bother.  this was a bad topic to begin with and its degenerated into something even worse.  

 
I don't think it does, but if i saw a valid peer-reviewed study that established causation i could change my mind.  but that isn't the topic, and when people resort to logical fallacies i usually dont bother.  this was a bad topic to begin with and its degenerated into something even worse.  
It’s actually a good topic.  And the downside to mask wearing is most definitely germane to the subject.  It is interesting though how indignant people got to such an innocuous and reasonable criticism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just found this...

CDC: Fully vaccinated people don’t spread COVID-19

The study may make it easier for people to resume normal lives

Mark Huffman, Reporter

published on 04/01/2021

People who are completely vaccinated have been advised to continue wearing masks and stay six feet apart to protect others. Now, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that may be unnecessary.

Previously, researchers weren’t sure if fully vaccinated people could somehow carry the virus and spread it to others, even if they didn’t get sick. They studied thousands of fully vaccinated first responders and have now concluded that it is highly unlikely that vaccinated people can carry the disease.

“Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions,” the authors of the study wrote. “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.”

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, put it this way: “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they don’t get sick,” she said on MSNBC. “That’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”

The study focused exclusively on the mRNA vaccines -- those produced by Moderna and jointly by Pfizer and BioNTech. The study did not include people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but the same principle may apply.

If you aren’t infected, you can’t spread it

In short, the researchers determined that if you aren’t infected with the virus and are vaccinated, you can’t spread it to others who have not been vaccinated. So, can fully vaccinated people toss their face masks in the trash? The CDC isn’t quite ready to say that.

The health agency has not issued new guidance on how vaccinated people should behave in public. Until it does, the current policy is that the vaccinated population should continue to mask up in public and take other precautions.

But the CDC study is evidence that the day when things start getting “back to normal” may not be that far off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Masks do not lower oxygen levels.

And leaders lead. By example. 
I’m not actually an anti-masker, but “studies” like this make me question the tripe we are being fed.

Overall, there were no concerning declines in blood oxygen saturation. On average, oxygen saturation was 96.1% before participants masked up, and then slightly higher while they wore masks and afterward — at 96.5% and 96.3%, respectively.
Wait, what?  Masks actually improve oxygen saturation?  So instead of giving patients in pulmonary distress oxygen, we can strap a 3-layer mask on them instead?  

 
Family Denied Entry onto Flight Because Son with Autism Wouldn't Wear Mask

Sara Santora

2 days ago

© KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor/GettySouthwest

As the world slowly returns to normal, varying rules around mask mandates continue to cause confusion and chaos for travelers.

Over the weekend, Southwest Airlines refused to let an Iowan couple board their return flight home because their five-year-old son, who has autism, struggled with wearing his mask.

According to Metro, Cody and Paige Petek and their two children were returning to their home in Des Moines, Iowa after enjoying a family vacation to Florida. But before boarding their connecting flight in Missouri, reports Metro, their son—who along with autism has a sensory processing disorder and is non-verbal—began to struggle with his mask.

The parents shared their child's disability information with the flight crew, but Southwest refused to let the family board the plane.

One passenger, Dr. Vince Hassel, told KCCI that others on the plane lobbied to allow the boy on the flight.

"They weren't going to let the kid on the plane if he didn't put his mask on," Hassel said to KCCI. "He just wasn't having it and throwing a fit. Just to watch this play out was absolutely horrible."

Multiple reports state that it was during this time that the boy had a seizure, but his medicine was on board the plane.

In a statement to KCCI, Southwest Airlines said: "While we regret any inconvenience this family experienced while traveling, federal law requires each person, 2 years of age and older, to wear a mask at all times throughout the travel journey."

TSA's official guidelines state that "those with a disability who cannot wear a mask or cannot safely wear a mask because of the disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act" are exempt from the federal mask mandate.

However, Southwest told KCCI that the five-year-old was not exempt because his parents had not completed an exemption application prior to boarding the flight.

To allow "additional time to comply," Southwest told KCCI that the airline offered to put the family up in a hotel room and book a new flight for Monday. But the Petek family instead decided to accept a full refund, rent a car and drive the five hours back to Iowa.

The family's lawyer, Anthony L. Marchetti Jr, says he believes Southwest Airlines violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"There's clear guidance from the department of transportation about what the airline should do," said Marchetti to KCCI. "None of that happened here."

This is not the first time an airline has gotten attention for this exact issue. Back in March, Spirit Airlines denied an autistic four-year-old boarding for his inability to wear a mask, stirring up controversy.

 
Very interesting article from Psychology Today.

The Psychology of Wearing a Face Mask

Does the emotion behind the wedding veil reveal the psychology of the face mask?

Posted May 13, 2020 Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

The Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico recently tracked an asteroid hurtling towards Earth: Its closest approach was on April 29, but it's due for a return in 2079. Then it will pass about 3.5 times closer to Earth than it did this year; astronomers explained it was therefore vital to investigate its orbit precisely.

Practicing a form of social distancing on this approach, the asteroid, approximately 1.2 miles across in size, named 1998 OR2, seemed aware that it was nearing a pandemic, according to those observing it, as it appeared to be wearing a protective face mask.

We suffer a strong psychological tendency to see faces, and facial features, in otherwise random features around us. Our perceptual system shapes what we perceive, and often "fills in" unclear scenes, revealing something that may not actually be there.

For example, in one of the first images sent back from the 1976 Viking 1 mission to Mars, an eerily strong likeness of a human face appeared, which scientists put down to a trick of the light cast by shadows across the planet’s surface.

Pareidolia refers to this common tendency to discern, for example, meaningful shapes in clouds; but why does it seem to be faces more than any other illusion?

Our brains may be biased to detect faces because the error of missing a face in the undergrowth, when it really is there, but hiding, could have cost your tribe members their lives, back in the day of routine raids in our ancestral environments. Perceptual "filling in" of the missing bits not visible, may save your life.

Evolutionary pressure explains why we are programmed to lock on to faces in our environment, and to process the mental state of people around us, by analyzing their facial expressions. There is clear survival value in noticing from a frown that someone is getting angry with us, long before they throw a spear, or dump us as lovers.

Our brains even make decisions about how attractive another person's face is within around 13 thousanths of a second, processing so fast that it occurs below conscious awareness.

How will protective face masks worn during a pandemic impact these fundamental psychological processes of person perception? A recent study entitled, "Face perception loves a challenge: Less information sparks more attraction," found that hiding half the face significantly increased its attractiveness to observers. The authors from the University of Lethbridge, Canada, found that removing visual information by blurring the face produced a similar effect. Does this explain why women throughout history deployed maneuvers such as hair falling across the face, or veils partially concealing their countenance?

The authors, Javid Sadr and Lauren Krowicki, calculate that their effect is so mathematically robust that they can confidently declare that “50% less face” produces “40% more attractiveness." Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue , who knows a thing or two about feminine beauty, always wears trademark super-sized dark sunglasses, obscuring half her face.

However, this study, published in the journal Vision Research, did not conceal the face horizontally, as a face mask would. Instead the face was obscured vertically on the left- or right-hand side. The general conclusion, that less is more when it comes to viewing a face leading to increased attraction, may still apply to wearing a face mask.

Late photographer Terry O'Neill took perhaps the most iconically beautiful picture of film star Brigette Bardot in 1971, on the set of a movie she was shooting at the time; yet what makes the picture particularly breathtaking, in its portrayal of her beauty, is that, paradoxically, the genius photographer waited for the precise moment when the wind blew her hair across her perfect cheekbones, so it partially obscured her upper face and eyes, before pressing the shutter button.

This reinforces the "less is more" theory of facial attractiveness advocated by Sadr and Krowicki. The psychologists speculate that one possible reason why faces become more beautiful to the perceiver when they are half obscured is that our brains are then forced to fill in the missing features. Maybe we tend to reflexively assume a much more desirable missing contour than is the reality. This may be because our neurology is forced to revert to ideal or more desirable features, because this is a stronger feature of our unconscious.

Is this why a veil is such a key part of the wedding costume? If shrouding her face enhances the beauty of the bride as she comes down the aisle, and if mystery adds to her allure, then will face mask psychology work in the same way?

But at the heart of the psychology of the wedding veil are other key elements: It is a celebration, not a life and death predicament; the bride voluntarily chooses to wear a veil and is not ordered to; and it is symbolically important that the groom lifts the veil.

If partial masking increases attractiveness because the brain fills in, then maybe the key issue becomes what the brain speculates the mask is hiding. In a pandemic the face mask looks like it might be concealing a dangerous infection.

Filling in gaps in what you know about others, but doing so under background conditions where the brain projects threat onto the outside world, is now linked to serious mental illness. Diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, or severe autism, involve deficits in processing other people's facial expressions. Paranoia has been linked to a tendency to make negative assumptions about relatively neutral facial expressions.

In a recent study entitled "Mapping the emotional face: How individual face parts contribute to successful emotion recognition," individual faces expressing the basic emotions were hidden behind a mask of 48 tiles, which were sequentially uncovered.

The study, from researchers based at Bielefeld University, Germany, found that observers mostly relied on the eye and mouth regions when successfully recognizing an emotion. Furthermore, different moods are detected from contrasting parts of the face. So, spotting sadness and fear relies on focusing on the eyes, whereas disgust and happiness are more reliably detected by concentrating on the mouth area.

As the eyes and mouth turned out to be the most important parts of facial expressions for recognizing feelings, expressions could be grouped systematically into “upper-face” and “lower-face” expressions.

The researchers (Martin Wegrzyn, Maria Vogt, Berna Kireclioglu, Julia Schneider, and Johanna Kissler) point out that we are most prone to confuse anger with disgust, as well as fear with surprise. Given that we already make mistakes over-interpreting facial expressions, how much more likely is it that this will become a kind of emotional pandemic if we all remain masked because of the virus?

On the other hand, those suffering from social phobia or anxiety, one of the commonest fears, may welcome wearing face masks precisely because they would prefer to veil their emotional state from the outside world all the time. They suffer from the dread that others are noticing they are blushing, or anxious, making negative judgments about them a result.

Erytrophobia is the fear of blushing in public and is a surprisingly common and debilitating condition. A face mask will hide their blushes, so millions may be grateful for the sense of security that face masks might bestow, and perhaps for the shy, greater anonymity may be a breath of fresh air. Some other cultures may embrace the face mask more easily, linked to whether they are less generally emotionally expressive compared to those in the West.

Samuel Cohn, a history professor at the University of Glasgow, recently published an article entitled, "Face masks: What the Spanish flu can teach us about making them compulsory." He reported that during the 1918-1920 pandemic, the U.S. public appeared to rebel much more over being forced to wear face masks than any of the much more restrictive measures that interfered with their liberty and everyday lives. There was something about the compulsory covering of the face that had a much bigger, somewhat surprising psychological impact on the population.

As your own face is the one you stare at most, through its reflection in a mirror, research confirms that we are more attracted to, and may even end up marrying, people with a similar facial structure to our own. Plus we are likely to get on better within a marriage with people whose faces structurally resemble our own.

If we are dating for an extended period while wearing a face mask, maybe for the first time a generation will end up marrying people who look very different from themselves. At some unconscious level was that partly what the face mask rebellion of the Spanish Flu was about?

People might again rebel now against wearing face masks more than any other public health measure because of their psychology. For example, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is currently leading an administration advocating wearing face masks, yet he himself in August 2018 became embroiled in a row because he was against women wearing face coverings in the form of the burkha.

According to the BBC News, Johnson said he felt "fully entitled" to expect women to remove face coverings when talking to him, and that schools and universities should be able to take the same approach if a student "turns up... looking like a bank robber .... I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."

He also said back then that businesses and government agencies should be able to "enforce a dress code" that allowed them to see customers' faces. Perhaps it was the suppression of individuality and forced conformity which bothered him then, but this could also now be a source of unease for millions forced to adopt a face covering, which may not be part of their natural psychology.

 
Just found this...

CDC: Fully vaccinated people don’t spread COVID-19

The study may make it easier for people to resume normal lives

Mark Huffman, Reporter

published on 04/01/2021

People who are completely vaccinated have been advised to continue wearing masks and stay six feet apart to protect others. Now, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that may be unnecessary.

Previously, researchers weren’t sure if fully vaccinated people could somehow carry the virus and spread it to others, even if they didn’t get sick. They studied thousands of fully vaccinated first responders and have now concluded that it is highly unlikely that vaccinated people can carry the disease.

“Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions,” the authors of the study wrote. “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.”

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, put it this way: “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they don’t get sick,” she said on MSNBC. “That’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”

The study focused exclusively on the mRNA vaccines -- those produced by Moderna and jointly by Pfizer and BioNTech. The study did not include people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but the same principle may apply.

If you aren’t infected, you can’t spread it

In short, the researchers determined that if you aren’t infected with the virus and are vaccinated, you can’t spread it to others who have not been vaccinated. So, can fully vaccinated people toss their face masks in the trash? The CDC isn’t quite ready to say that.

The health agency has not issued new guidance on how vaccinated people should behave in public. Until it does, the current policy is that the vaccinated population should continue to mask up in public and take other precautions.

But the CDC study is evidence that the day when things start getting “back to normal” may not be that far off.
Interesting. Thanks.  
 

Also interesting is this is what’s still on the CDC website (updated as of 4/28).....

What we are still learning

Scientists are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus. We’re also still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines protect people.

Although COVID-19 vaccines are effective at keeping you from getting sick, scientists are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to others, even if you do not have symptoms. Early data show the vaccines do help keep people with no symptoms from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated.

We’re also still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines protect people.

For these reasons, people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 should keep taking precautions in public places, until we know more, like wearing a mask, staying 6 feet apart from others, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and washing your hands often.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html#:~:text=Early data show the vaccines,more people get vaccinated.

 
Family Denied Entry onto Flight Because Son with Autism Wouldn't Wear Mask

Sara Santora

2 days ago

© KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor/GettySouthwest

As the world slowly returns to normal, varying rules around mask mandates continue to cause confusion and chaos for travelers.

Over the weekend, Southwest Airlines refused to let an Iowan couple board their return flight home because their five-year-old son, who has autism, struggled with wearing his mask.

According to Metro, Cody and Paige Petek and their two children were returning to their home in Des Moines, Iowa after enjoying a family vacation to Florida. But before boarding their connecting flight in Missouri, reports Metro, their son—who along with autism has a sensory processing disorder and is non-verbal—began to struggle with his mask.

The parents shared their child's disability information with the flight crew, but Southwest refused to let the family board the plane.

One passenger, Dr. Vince Hassel, told KCCI that others on the plane lobbied to allow the boy on the flight.

"They weren't going to let the kid on the plane if he didn't put his mask on," Hassel said to KCCI. "He just wasn't having it and throwing a fit. Just to watch this play out was absolutely horrible."

Multiple reports state that it was during this time that the boy had a seizure, but his medicine was on board the plane.

In a statement to KCCI, Southwest Airlines said: "While we regret any inconvenience this family experienced while traveling, federal law requires each person, 2 years of age and older, to wear a mask at all times throughout the travel journey."

TSA's official guidelines state that "those with a disability who cannot wear a mask or cannot safely wear a mask because of the disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act" are exempt from the federal mask mandate.

However, Southwest told KCCI that the five-year-old was not exempt because his parents had not completed an exemption application prior to boarding the flight.

To allow "additional time to comply," Southwest told KCCI that the airline offered to put the family up in a hotel room and book a new flight for Monday. But the Petek family instead decided to accept a full refund, rent a car and drive the five hours back to Iowa.

The family's lawyer, Anthony L. Marchetti Jr, says he believes Southwest Airlines violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"There's clear guidance from the department of transportation about what the airline should do," said Marchetti to KCCI. "None of that happened here."

This is not the first time an airline has gotten attention for this exact issue. Back in March, Spirit Airlines denied an autistic four-year-old boarding for his inability to wear a mask, stirring up controversy.
Their own study confirmed what they already knew from the vaccine trials. Vaccinated people do not carry the virus. It should be settled science. My company has already issued direction to remove all facial covering requirements for vaccinated people. But, we are smart, we are engineers and scientists. The average Joe should be asking WTF? But, apparently theyve been brain washed. 

 
He wears a mask to encourage us vaccinated folks to continue to wear masks, to join him in a message to those who haven't been vaccinated that they should get vaccinated, after which they will, umm, still be asked to wear a mask.  

This will continue until we reach herd immunity, as defined by... well, the CDC won't seem to define it even though we should know enough about contagiousness and death rates to set a target, but the danger of that is that we may hit the target and generate a fresh set of questions regarding mask wearing, so it is easier to speak to an amorphous and therefore unreachable "herd immunity" value and continue to point to the first sentence above.

HTH
I think you’re trying to be snarky, but I’ll attempt to clarify the herd immunity concept. In general, herd immunity is reached when (1-1/R0) x 100% of a susceptible population has been infected or vaccinated. We’re not quite there yet. Even if you use R0 estimates between 2.5-4 for the OG virus, we’d need 60-75% of 330 + million people to qualify. And this assumes uniform distribution of vaccinated/previously infected folks, with low penetration of more contagious SARS-CoV-2 flavors, whose R0 may exceed 6.

We’ve had ~33 million documented infections, with probably another 3-4 times that amount who’ve been infected, but were never formally diagnosed. And roughly 30% of the population has been fully vaccinated, with just under half receiving at least one shot. Depending on the overlap between those two groups, you can hopefully see the herd immunity numbers don’t quite add up.

I’m oversimplifying a lot, but surely you can understand why it may be appropriate for leaders to set a good example by wearing masks, even after they’ve been immunized. Barring the emergence of a vaccine resistant variant (India ain’t helping), I suspect we’ll de-escalate mask use and other NPIs by late summer.

Here’s a decent article on the challenges of estimating R0.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not actually an anti-masker, but “studies” like this make me question the tripe we are being fed.

Wait, what?  Masks actually improve oxygen saturation?  So instead of giving patients in pulmonary distress oxygen, we can strap a 3-layer mask on them instead?  
No, those values aren’t statistically different, and surely within the margin for error for pulse oximetry devices.

As an aside, there are many reasons pulse ox readings can be spuriously low, and respiratory distress can be caused by mechanisms other than hypoxia.

 
:shrug:

I have had both shots.  I still wear a mask in public.

Its required in many stores, its not an inconvenience to me, and as a side benefit, it probably helps with my seasonal allergies.

 
:shrug:

I have had both shots.  I still wear a mask in public.

Its required in many stores, its not an inconvenience to me, and as a side benefit, it probably helps with my seasonal allergies.
And a side benefit of a little odor protection when entering a public restroom.

 
I don’t know if it counts as science but I think it’s likely that as soon as vaccinated people stop wearing masks so will unvaccinated people.
Totally plausible.  The next logical question would then be, how long should those of us who are vaccinated continue to have to wear masks to protect those who refuse the vaccine?  Is there a set period of time or is it forever since there is going to be a statistically significant portion of the population who will always opt to not take the vaccine?  

 
Totally plausible.  The next logical question would then be, how long should those of us who are vaccinated continue to have to wear masks to protect those who refuse the vaccine?  Is there a set period of time or is it forever since there is going to be a statistically significant portion of the population who will always opt to not take the vaccine?  
This is a extremely valid point and one I agree with. At some point people’s ignorance and refusal to face what’s in front of them has to come in to play.  Out of respect for others I currently wear a facemask when it makes sense or is required indoors, ie grocery stores Home Depot etc. etc. It’s not a massive inconvenience, but I’m also not going to continue it endlessly for other peoples stubbornness or ignorance.  

 
This is a extremely valid point and one I agree with. At some point people’s ignorance and refusal to face what’s in front of them has to come in to play.  Out of respect for others I currently wear a facemask when it makes sense or is required indoors, ie grocery stores Home Depot etc. etc. It’s not a massive inconvenience, but I’m also not going to continue it endlessly for other peoples stubbornness or ignorance.  
Agreed.  While our state has lifted the restrictions, many of our small businesses and restaurants are asking employees to continue wearing them.  When a sign says "mask preferred" I typically will wear one if indoors because I'm patronizing their business and they are asking that of the employees then for the near term I see it as a transition.  But in the not too distant future it has to end.  We have plenty of vaccine now for anyone who wants it and once everyone who wants it has gotten it and had time for it to take effect I'm not willing to continue to be inconvenienced, lose my freedoms, not go to gatherings, whatever you want to call it, for those who freely choose not to be vaccinated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you’re trying to be snarky, but I’ll attempt to clarify the herd immunity concept. In general, herd immunity is reached when (1-1/R0) x 100% of a susceptible population has been infected or vaccinated. We’re not quite there yet. Even if you use R0 estimates between 2.5-4 for the OG virus, we’d need 60-75% of 330 + million people to qualify. And this assumes uniform distribution of vaccinated/previously infected folks, with low penetration of more contagious SARS-CoV-2 flavors, whose R0 may exceed 6.

We’ve had ~33 million documented infections, with probably another 3-4 times that amount who’ve been infected, but were never formally diagnosed. And roughly 30% of the population has been fully vaccinated, with just under half receiving at least one shot. Depending on the overlap between those two groups, you can hopefully see the herd immunity numbers don’t quite add up.

I’m oversimplifying a lot, but surely you can understand why it may be appropriate for leaders to set a good example by wearing masks, even after they’ve been immunized. Barring the emergence of a vaccine resistant variant (India ain’t helping), I suspect we’ll de-escalate mask use and other NPIs by late summer.

Here’s a decent article on the challenges of estimating R0.
I am trying to be snarky while also making a point.  Your article is helpful for those unfamiliar with R numbers so thanks for posting.  It is from July of last year however; hopefully we’ve learned a little bit more about Covid.  Also you’ve stated a goal of 60-75%, the internet is full of people with similar numbers, but what is our official goal?  I know that it is not an exact science, but that shouldn’t stop us from having a target.  I maintain that we will never have one, for the snarky reasons I stated.

 
Agreed.  While our state has lifted the restrictions, many of our small businesses and restaurants are asking employees to continue wearing them.  When a sign says "mask preferred" I typically will wear one if indoors because I'm patronizing their business and they are asking that of the employees then for the near term I see it as a transition.  But in the not too distant future it has to end.  We have plenty of vaccine now for anyone who wants it and once everyone who wants it has gotten it and had time for it to take effect I'm not willing to continue to be inconvenienced, lose my freedoms, not go to gatherings, whatever you want to call it, for those who freely choose not to be vaccinated.
Same here.  If I'm patronizing a business that requires a mask or even just politely requests a mask, I'll wear one.  I have no interest in being "that guy" who makes a big deal out of a minor thing when I'm on somebody else's property.  

Otherwise I'm done with masks starting Monday, when our campus switches to mask-optional. 

Edit: Also, I'm not going to criticize people or make fun of them if they choose to keep wearing a mask.  First because it's none of my business, and second because it doesn't make it easier for people to reenter society if you give them #### over taking baby steps.  Let people reenter at their own pace.  (I'm talking about randos here -- leaders like Biden who should probably set a better example).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, those values aren’t statistically different, and surely within the margin for error for pulse oximetry devices.

As an aside, there are many reasons pulse ox readings can be spuriously low, and respiratory distress can be caused by mechanisms other than hypoxia.
I’m sure they are within the margin of error, which combined with the whopping 25 study participants, make that study relatively useless.  Certainly not worthy of the article headline.

Chan acknowledged that the study was small and had limitations. For example, it excluded people with heart or lung diseases that could cause them to have breathing problems even at rest.
I’m also intrigued by the concept that masks do not restrict oxygen.  Masks trap breath vapor which is the mechanism by which they purport to help reduce Covid transmission — viruses themselves, like oxygen molecules, are much smaller than the mask filters.  But in building up trapped vapor over time, they inherently create a moisture barrier which inhibits the transmission of gases.  This is basic physics, and anyone who has worn a mask for an extended period of time can attest to it.

What we learned from that study is that a handful of people without lung issues and no stress (e.g., activity or exercise) showed no statistically significant change in pulse ox within the margin of error for the measuring devices.

Sometimes it is all in the wording.

"Our study does not support claims that masks are dangerous," Chan said.
This is a true statement.

 
I'm not willing to continue to be inconvenienced, lose my freedoms, not go to gatherings, whatever you want to call it, for those who freely choose not to be vaccinated.
I’m willing to be somewhat inconvenienced to help save people’s lives.

As far as “how long?” that’s a tricky question with a lot of considerations.  For me I actually don’t think it will need to be that long.  The county I live in is already over 50% with one shot and over 40% fully vaccinated and there still seem to be a lot of people still getting vaccinated.  Our cases and hospitalizations and deaths have been dropping pretty rapidly.  My guess is that the virus won’t really be spreading around here in another month or two.

I recognize the considerations are very different in a county where vaccination rates are lower.

 
Of course you haven’t heard of it.  It’s not on CNN.  And of course you don’t care about Liberal restrictions on freedoms.  You probably like censorship as well.
Jesus dude, it's a temporary erring on the side of caution measure in a place you don't live. Wgaf?

 
Totally plausible.  The next logical question would then be, how long should those of us who are vaccinated continue to have to wear masks to protect those who refuse the vaccine?  Is there a set period of time or is it forever since there is going to be a statistically significant portion of the population who will always opt to not take the vaccine?  
This post sums it all up. In the next 30-90 days we will have reached the point where anyone who wanted a vaccination could have easily gotten one.  And that’s the point where Biden and others should ditch the mask, though I’m willing to bet a lot of people won’t.  My office has already released plans to reopen 4 months from now, and the plan calls for mask wearing and social distancing.  Have to protect the 2 or 3 idiots who refuse to get vaccinated.

 
Jesus dude, it's a temporary erring on the side of caution measure in a place you don't live. Wgaf?
You do realize what I was responding to right?  You’re ok with the state putting a law in place that people can’t dance at their own wedding?  The authoritarianism gene is strong in some.

 
You do realize what I was responding to right?  You’re ok with the state putting a law in place that people can’t dance at their own wedding?  The authoritarianism gene is strong in some.
This isn't Footloose Ren, it's a global pandemic. Do I think it's a bridge too far? Probably, but it's temporary and I am also a believer in erring on the side of caution. Wouldn't be surprised if the blowback gets that wiped.

 
This post sums it all up. In the next 30-90 days we will have reached the point where anyone who wanted a vaccination could have easily gotten one.  And that’s the point where Biden and others should ditch the mask, though I’m willing to bet a lot of people won’t.  My office has already released plans to reopen 4 months from now, and the plan calls for mask wearing and social distancing.  Have to protect the 2 or 3 idiots who refuse to get vaccinated.
At Penn State, they haven't renewed anyone for football in the fall, the only Power 5 team to not do so.  They've been spending money with Ticketmaster to work on distancing pods within the stadium in the fall of 2021 that is about 4 months from now.  Again, the only collegiate athletic department anywhere that I know of that has done this.  All this from a school who was the only one who kept patron money last year without a full refund claiming they'd already budgeted the money so couldn't refund, as if others hadn't.  There's already an undercurrent of folks there ready to end Sandy Barbour's time as AD over that.  If this persists where they claim they needed the money but waste it on things like this and aren't even planning on letting fans attend in full and further restricting revenue, her tenure is going to end in a very ugly way.  If we can't get back to normal 4 months from now, we aren't ever going back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no problem wearing a mask in places that request it but we went to a BBQ restaurant last month where no one, not even the staff, were wearing masks and it felt so good to feel normal again.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top