Vaccine thread

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Got stats?  (or will 

I am thrilled you asked

 

 

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/archive/2022-10-21/cases-following-vaccination.html

 

(It stands to reason that the missing percentage in that graph is those who received a single dose, since that is a category which is omitted and the unvaccinated is less than half)

 

 

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/cases-following-vaccination.html

 

Here we see the statement that they have stopped tracking vaccinated status

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

And what if I decide that your opinion that some opinions are false and dangerous, is false and dangerous? "Who decides" is vastly more profound of a question than you seem to give it credit for. The type of person who would take up the role of censoring other's opinions because they are so sure they are right and the other person is wrong is the exact last person I would choose for that role.

 

Again, there were times when the public health officials would have said that holding the opinion that cloth masks don't work was "false and dangerous", even though we have good evidence now from the Cochrain Review that they probably do nothing (which I posted earlier).

 

I am actually glad that you have said you are pro-censorship though, it certainly gets to the root of our disagreement.

So many words, so little said.

 

Re the Cochrane review:  I have not looked at your study but I know there are many others to counter it.   I remember one where the author admitted that they just could not tell if masks were useful or not.  Personally, I don't care.  Neither do I care that I wasted time and money using hand sanitizer.   We got through it.  My family and I are alive.

 

I do know that whatever you believe you can find someone who agrees with you if you spend enough time on the internet looking for it.  You have often mentioned studies that agrees with you.   How much time have you spent looking at those that do not?

[Satchmo]

9 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

What happened to the flu during covid? Just a miracle that there were no flu cases during covid, we would've been in some serious trouble then!

 

 

How is that a miracle?   Put some thought into your question and get back to me if you can't answer it yourself.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

So many words, so little said.

 

Re the Cochrane review:  I have not looked at your study but I know there are many others to counter it.   I remember one where the author admitted that they just could not tell if masks were useful or not.  Personally, I don't care.  Neither do I care that I wasted time and money using hand sanitizer.   We got through it.  My family and I are alive.

 

I do know that whatever you believe you can find someone who agrees with you if you spend enough time on the internet looking for it.  You have often mentioned studies that agrees with you.   How much time have you spent looking at those that do not?

And this is the final admission. "Personally, I don't care"

 

Guess what? I care. I care that we do a better job next time. I care we have the right policies. I care that fewer people die. I care that fewer kids have their education stunted. These things matter. These things matter a lot.

 

Also, hand sanitizer wasn't wasted time or money, Cochrane actually found hand washing to have a positive measurable impact. In fact, hand washing and sanitizing may be the single most agreed upon preventative measure.

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

And this is the final admission. "Personally, I don't care"

 

Guess what? I care. I care that we do a better job next time. I care we have the right policies. I care that fewer people die. I care that fewer kids have their education stunted. These things matter. These things matter a lot.

 

Also, hand sanitizer wasn't wasted time or money, Cochrane actually found hand washing to have a positive measurable impact. In fact, hand washing and sanitizing may be the single most agreed upon preventative measure.

Don't take my comment as proof of what I care or do not care about.  I'm just saying I do not think it was such a big deal.

 

Yes, hand washing was important.  Your favorite study may promote hand sanitizers; other studies have said it was not as worthwhile as first thought.

 

I applaud your lofty goals.  I'm dubious in regards to our chances of meeting them however.  When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

 

Another question - WTF are you cherry picking what I say and just responding to what you perceive to be low hanging fruit?

[Satchmo]

Announcement to anyone who might care and and with full understanding that probably no one will or should -  I am done with this conversation for now.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Don't take my comment as proof of what I care or do not care about.  I'm just saying I do not think it was such a big deal.

 

Yes, hand washing was important.  Your favorite study may promote hand sanitizers; other studies have said it was not as worthwhile as first thought.

 

I applaud your lofty goals.  I'm dubious in regards to our chances of meeting them however.  When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

 

Another question - WTF are you cherry picking what I say and just responding to what you perceive to be low hanging fruit?

Ironic, I noticed that once I provided the stats you asked for on covid hospitalization vax status and the fact that they stopped reporting right after it flipped, you had nothing more to say on that account.

 

I've tried to answer every point you have brought up. Even your contention that there are conflicting reports (which is a vague hand-waving type of comment) is answered by my earlier point that a robust debate should be had and that censorship is completely unhelpful.

 

Based on your reply earlier, you favor an authority simply picking the preferred course of action and censoring anything that contradicts it. I disagree with that sentiment.

[4petesake]

1 hour ago, Xanlet said:

According to one of the most respected medical research institutes, The Cochrane Library, based on a number of Randomized Controlled Trials, cloth masking has little to no measurable impact on community spread.

 

"Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence.

 

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence)."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

 

I agree it signals a kind of consideration of others, but it also demonstrates that certain public health measures were adopted not just in the absence of evidence, but even when the evidence shows the policies probably do not help at all.

 

“Cloth”

 

I didn’t say anything in my post about a cloth mask.

[Xanlet]

Just now, 4petesake said:

 

“Cloth”

 

I didn’t say anything in my post about a cloth mask.

May I inquire what type of mask was being worn at the time?

[4petesake]

8 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

May I inquire what type of mask was being worn at the time?

 

You may not since I’m not the least bit interested in re-litigating the mask debate. My point, which you skipped over in your rush to your mask argument, was that if someone sneezes in your face you would decidedly prefer that they were wearing a mask (cloth or otherwise) and standing further away. Or maybe I shouldn’t speak for you but I most definitely would.

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, 4petesake said:

 

You may not since I’m not the least bit interested in re-litigating the mask debate. My point, which you skipped over in your rush to your mask argument, was that if someone sneezes in your face you would decidedly prefer that they were wearing a mask (cloth or otherwise) and standing further away. Or maybe I shouldn’t speak for you but I most definitely would.

Yes, that would be a most persuasive argument if it were commonplace for people to sneeze in one another's faces.

 

My point of view is that, while I of course do not agree with any rudeness this person may have shown to your wife, I can understand why someone who had been under a mandate to wear a mask which the evidence shows probably does nothing to change community spread might be frustrated by that and take that frustration out on masked people. This type of rudeness is unfortunate and such ire should be focused on the misapplication of the policy, not on the people who may decide to wear a mask.

 

Allow me to state fully that people do have an unhelpful tendency to become agitated with others regarding covid safety measures and to commit regrettable transgressions of decorum. This is all the more reason why we should emphasize the importance of respectfulness and thoughtful discussion.

 

I am glad you drew attention to the distinction about cloth masks though, since I suppose at this point it has become the common opinion that, even though they were mandated by governments, cloth masks are probably totally useless.

 

To be more specific, the Cochrane review examined "medical/surgical masks" compared to no masks. The result was what I posted earlier, probably no impact at all on community spread.

[Bob Long]

6 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Yes, that would be a most persuasive argument if it were commonplace for people to sneeze in one another's faces.

 

My point of view is that, while I of course do not agree with any rudeness this person may have shown to your wife, I can understand why someone who had been under a mandate to wear a mask which the evidence shows probably does nothing to change community spread might be frustrated by that and take that frustration out on masked people. This type of rudeness is unfortunate and such ire should be focused on the misapplication of the policy, not on the people who may decide to wear a mask.

 

Allow me to state fully that people do have an unhelpful tendency to become agitated with others regarding covid safety measures and to commit regrettable transgressions of decorum. This is all the more reason why we should emphasize the importance of respectfulness and thoughtful discussion.

 

I am glad you drew attention to the distinction about cloth masks though, since I suppose at this point it has become the common opinion that, even though they were mandated by governments, cloth masks are probably totally useless.

 

To be more specific, the Cochrane review examined "medical/surgical masks" compared to no masks. The result was what I posted earlier, probably no impact at all on community spread.

 

the people that refused to wear masks were pigs. It was literally the least one could do. 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

19 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Yes, that would be a most persuasive argument if it were commonplace for people to sneeze in one another's faces.

 

My point of view is that, while I of course do not agree with any rudeness this person may have shown to your wife, I can understand why someone who had been under a mandate to wear a mask which the evidence shows probably does nothing to change community spread might be frustrated by that and take that frustration out on masked people. This type of rudeness is unfortunate and such ire should be focused on the misapplication of the policy, not on the people who may decide to wear a mask.

 

Allow me to state fully that people do have an unhelpful tendency to become agitated with others regarding covid safety measures and to commit regrettable transgressions of decorum. This is all the more reason why we should emphasize the importance of respectfulness and thoughtful discussion.

 

I am glad you drew attention to the distinction about cloth masks though, since I suppose at this point it has become the common opinion that, even though they were mandated by governments, cloth masks are probably totally useless.

 

To be more specific, the Cochrane review examined "medical/surgical masks" compared to no masks. The result was what I posted earlier, probably no impact at all on community spread.

 

Cloth masks are completely useless when it comes to stopping an airborne virus.  They are used in hospitals in surgery settings to protect the doctors and nurses from splattered blood, saliva and whatever else they come across.  They DO NOT stop any airborne virus from transferring from one human to another.  If someone sneezed in your face with a cloth mask on, it would do little to almost nothing to prevent you from catching any airborne virus.  As a matter of fact, you could literally leave the room and the virus would still linger in the air for the next person to breathe in...

 

An airborne disease might be more transmissible overall. For example, aerosols produced by infectious person A could build up in a small, poorly ventilated room over time. Person A might depart the room but leave their aerosols behind. If person B were then to arrive in the room and spend time there, they could potentially become infected through breathing in the contaminated air.

 

Covid-19: What do we know about airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2? | The BMJ

 

The ONLY masks that were ever effective during COVID were the N95 masks. The KN95 masks were fine as well.  But even those were not 100 effective.  These are the masks that I wore for the time that I wore a mask.  I bought several boxes of them and so did everyone else I knew.  I still see people wearing those cloth masks today in shopping malls.  The other part of it is that nobody was actually told HOW to wear a mask.  I used to see LOTS of people during COVID wearing cloth masks and the mask wasn't even covering their nose.  It was a joke really...

Edited June 6 by Elias Pettersson

[Canucks 2003]

 

[Xanlet]

16 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

the people that refused to wear masks were pigs. It was literally the least one could do. 

 

Civil Disobedience has a long and storied and very important place in society. The fact that the type of masks that were included in the mandates appear to have no impact on spread would lend credibility to the fact that people who refused to comply with such a mandate which had essentially no efficacy were perhaps noble and almost certainly correct and have been vindicated.

 

I will admit I complied with this mandate in order to continue working, but I applaud those who stood up against it (in so far as it was justified Civil Disobedience, not if they were unnecessarily antagonistic towards others).

 

It is a laudable virtue to be considerate of others, but there are times when the professed consideration of others is hollow and based on nothing, as it was in this case. Thus, forcing other to comply with a mandate which has no basis (and includes things which the evidence suggest are totally useless) is no virtue at all.

[Satchmo]

7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Cloth masks are completely useless when it comes to stopping an airborne virus.  They are used in hospitals in surgery settings to protect the doctors and nurses from splattered blood, saliva and whatever else they come across.  They DO NOT stop any airborne virus from transferring from one human to another.  If someone sneezed in your face with a cloth mask on, it would do little to almost nothing to prevent you from catching any airborne virus.  As a matter of fact, you could literally leave the room and the virus would still linger in the air for the next person to breathe in...

 

An airborne disease might be more transmissible overall. For example, aerosols produced by infectious person A could build up in a small, poorly ventilated room over time. Person A might depart the room but leave their aerosols behind. If person B were then to arrive in the room and spend time there, they could potentially become infected through breathing in the contaminated air.

 

Covid-19: What do we know about airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2? | The BMJ

 

The ONLY masks that were ever effective during COVID were the N95 masks. And even those are not 100 effective.  That is the mask that I wore for the time that I wore a mask.  I bought several boxes of them and so did everyone else I knew.  I still see people wearing those cloth masks today in shopping malls.  The other part of it is that nobody was actually told HOW to wear a mask.  I used to see LOTS of people during COVID wearing cloth masks and the mask wasn't even covering their nose.  It was a joke really...

Not completely useless. A totally cloth mask certainly was.   A cloth mask with the right filter offered some benefit.    How sick someone got was often associated with how much of the virus they were infected with.   If the masks of two parties limited the amount of infection by almost any percentage it can be considered a plus.

 

To a certain degree I wore a mask like a team uniform.  And yes, there were a lot of people who just did not understand how to wear a mask.  Kind of like some hockey players and their mouth guards. 

 

Who says nobody was told how to wear a mask?  I remember lots of info on that.  As per your italicized bit.  Well, duh.

[Xanlet]

16 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Cloth masks are completely useless when it comes to stopping an airborne virus.  They are used in hospitals in surgery settings to protect the doctors and nurses from splattered blood, saliva and whatever else they come across.  They DO NOT stop any airborne virus from transferring from one human to another.  If someone sneezed in your face with a cloth mask on, it would do little to almost nothing to prevent you from catching any airborne virus.  As a matter of fact, you could literally leave the room and the virus would still linger in the air for the next person to breathe in...

 

An airborne disease might be more transmissible overall. For example, aerosols produced by infectious person A could build up in a small, poorly ventilated room over time. Person A might depart the room but leave their aerosols behind. If person B were then to arrive in the room and spend time there, they could potentially become infected through breathing in the contaminated air.

 

Covid-19: What do we know about airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2? | The BMJ

 

The ONLY masks that were ever effective during COVID were the N95 masks. The KN95 masks were fine as well.  But even those were not 100 effective.  These are the masks that I wore for the time that I wore a mask.  I bought several boxes of them and so did everyone else I knew.  I still see people wearing those cloth masks today in shopping malls.  The other part of it is that nobody was actually told HOW to wear a mask.  I used to see LOTS of people during COVID wearing cloth masks and the mask wasn't even covering their nose.  It was a joke really...

Yes, but cloth masks were included in the official government mandates. That alone is a staggering failure and a total miscarriage of government force to impose such a mandate.

 

This is what I would like more focus to be on, because such a failure should not be tolerated and there should be accountability for such an erroneous failure of judgement by those in charge of public health, don't you agree?

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Yes, but cloth masks were included in the official government mandates. That alone is a staggering failure and a total miscarriage of government force to impose such a mandate.

 

This is what I would like more focus to be on, because such a failure should not be tolerated and there should be accountability for such an erroneous failure of judgement by those in charge of public health, don't you agree?

 

masks were only one part of the recommended protections, and in fact it was last on the list of recommended protections, with vaccination at the top. 

 

The only miscarriage going on is your continued mischaracterization of what happened. 

 

I don't know why you're doing this now, but it's dumb. 

[4petesake]

30 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

 

My point of view is that, while I of course do not agree with any rudeness this person may have shown to your wife, I can understand why someone who had been under a mandate to wear a mask which the evidence shows probably does nothing to change community spread might be frustrated by that and take that frustration out on masked people. This type of rudeness is unfortunate and such ire should be focused on the misapplication of the policy, not on the people who may decide to wear a mask.

 

 

Sorry but this was a whiff.

 

The guy hadn’t worked in 20 years and lived in his mom’s house, off of his mom’s pension and was under zero pressure to put on a mask anywhere, anytime. He was the literal definition of living in his mom’s basement spending his days doing his own research and telling the world how wrong the experts were.

 

The only credit he gets with me is that he was a companion and caregiver to an important person in my life.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

masks were only one part of the recommended protections, and in fact it was last on the list of recommended protections, with vaccination at the top. 

 

The only miscarriage going on is your continued mischaracterization of what happened. 

 

I don't know why you're doing this now, but it's dumb. 

It's one part that was totally ineffectual, yet had the force of the government behind it. Shouldn't everyone be concerned about that? Shouldn't we want the government to be enforcing well reasoned and actually effective policies? Shouldn't we learn from this and be open to acknowledging where policy went wrong, and also to recognize that dissent against public policy can end up being vindicated?

 

There are almost endless reasons to bring this up, none of which are dumb.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Xanlet said:

It's one part that was totally ineffectual, yet had the force of the government behind it. Shouldn't everyone be concerned about that? Shouldn't we want the government to be enforcing well reasoned and actually effective policies? Shouldn't we learn from this and be open to acknowledging where policy went wrong, and also to recognize that dissent against public policy can end up being vindicated?

 

There are almost endless reasons to bring this up, none of which are dumb.

 

We did learn, we have the reports. You pretending like these are open questions is disingenuous and misleading. Again, not sure why? maybe tell us your motivation. 

[Xanlet]

Just now, 4petesake said:

 

Sorry but this was a whiff.

 

The guy hadn’t worked in 20 years and lived in his mom’s house, off of his mom’s pension and was under zero pressure to put on a mask anywhere, anytime. He was the literal definition of living in his mom’s basement spending his days doing his own research and telling the world how wrong the experts were.

 

The only credit he gets with me is that he was a companion and caregiver to an important person in my life.

 

He was still under a mandate which barred him from public places without wearing at least a cloth mask, which I think everyone can now agree was a bad policy which was unjustified.

 

The point of the matter is that "doing his own research" literally led him to the correct position on this topic... because the experts in public health were actually wrong on cloth masks!

 

Now, I am obviously not familiar with all his views, but on the topic of cloth masks, it's pretty cut and dry.

[Xanlet]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

We did learn, we have the reports. You pretending like these are open questions is disingenuous and misleading. Again, not sure why? maybe tell us your motivation. 

Because it seems many people want to sweep certain failures under the rug, as it seems to me you did when you claimed masks were "last on the list of recommended protections". This is totally irrelevant since the mandate was present and enforced.

 

In my view, it's unhelpful to downplay this part of public policy. They enforced a mandate on people which was totally unjustified. This alone gives major credibility to being skeptical of public health orders in the future, because they have a major failed policy and I have yet to hear any kind of Mea Culpa by any of those who pushed it. How can you trust an authority which won't recognize or apologize for their manifest failures?

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

Because it seems many people want to sweep certain failures under the rug, as it seems to me you did when you claimed masks were "last on the list of recommended protections". This is totally irrelevant since the mandate was present and enforced.

 

In my view, it's unhelpful to downplay this part of public policy. They enforced a mandate on people which was totally unjustified. This alone gives major credibility to being skeptical of public health orders in the future, because they have a major failed policy and I have yet to hear any kind of Mea Culpa by any of those who pushed it. How can you trust an authority which won't recognize or apologize for their manifest failures?

 

you want an apology? its worse than I thought. 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

you want an apology? its worse than I thought. 

How about an update so they stop spreading misinformation? Look at this page from the BC Center for Disease Control, they state that:

 

"All types of masks help reduce transmission of respiratory infections when they fit comfortably over the mouth and nose with no gaps around the face. "

 

But then under "non-medical masks" they state: "Non-medical disposable masks often look like certified medical masks, but unlike certified medical masks, they have not been tested by national agencies for filtration effectiveness."

 

On their own page they make a sweeping declaration that all masks work, but then admit certain masks have never been tested! Wild!

 

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/prevention-risks/masks

 

 

Shall I still be accused of "hind sight"?