3

clearly not.

It's also maths not science and equivilence is a thorny topic (as indicatd by my current avatar)

Oh look! Sh*tSayer is writing a whole post to himself.

I think the data are basically showing a very low likelihood of transmitting the virus by vaccinated persons, but there will still be isolated cases where it does happen, as the Yankees example clearly shows.

For the vast majority though, get a shot, go back to life as normal. Hallelujah

India variant massively outcompeting the Kent variant in the UK.

Will be the dominant strain within days.

From what i read the vaccines seem to work against it right? Especially Pfizer and Moderna so as long as it doesn't mutate we are okay?

Work is a too binary way of thinking about it.

Vaccines create linear outcomes.

Any situation where R < 1 (vaccinated people transmitting, summer) is beyond stupid to impose any requirements (masks) or restrictions on.

The experts and left wing media of course are too stupid to understand such simple principles until months too late. Which is why they made such fools of themselves on both Texas and vaccinated mask requirements.

Sh*tSayer does have some sort of point.

The reality is this.

1. If an infected person wears a mask, it is much better than if they do not regarding the likelihood of them infecting somebody else.

2. If a healthy person wears a mask, it does not protect them so much re getting the infection, but it does make it much more likely they get minimally infected/much more likely to be asymptomatic.

3. This also depends on the inoculum (the amount of viral particles that you are infected with). If you are wearing a mask you will be infected with fewer viral particles and thus be asymptomatic.

Therefore, wear a mask to increase the chances that if you get infected, it will not be serious.

At the place I go to pick food up from all the time, over 80% of customers have been wearing masks every time I've gone. Today, it was the complete opposite. Over 80% of customers were not wearing masks. The only thing that has changed is the CDC's recommendation.

This is proof positive that people are incapable of making logical decisions without the government's guidance.

I don't think yo know what the reality of anything is, frankly. To wit:

How much better? How much does a mask lower the R of an infected person? 0.01? 0.1? 0.2? 0.5? >1? To what extent does the feeling of safety/less infectiousness with a mask increase the R of that person?

Please quantify "much more". 1% more likely to get minimally infected? 5%? 20%? 50%? To what extent does the feeling of safety/lesser care and distancing in some people with a mask increase the odds of that person getting infected?

Where did you get this from, apart from out of your ass?

To be more clear.

No Vaccine is 100%

So the vaccines might work against it but at a reduced capacity say 80% (current variants) to 65% protection against serious disease (hospitalisation). Its not known as yet what exactly the situation is in this regard.

However what is known that it is much more transmissible than the Kent variant. This is very worrying given the Kent variant was already highly transmissible.

It means it has a higher potential to find and infect the unvaccinated and the unlucky % who are vaccinated but will still get moderately to seriously ill in a shorter time frame and thus create disease burden.

I got it mostly from Professor Monica Gandhi, who is from San Francisco General Hospital. She is a Professor of infectious diseases. I also got it from many other good bits of research which backs this up.

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/ma...-get-less-sick

'Cloth masks do protect the wearer – breathing in less coronavirus means you get less sick:'.

https://theconversation.com/cloth-ma...ss-sick-143726

Let us look at some evidence for this as well:

'Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer:'

https://link.springer.com/article/10...06-020-06067-8

'Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based, Risk-Based Approach (Annals of Internal Medicine)':

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2567


I could go on and on providing good research to back this up. So another wrong statement by you, although you will probably think you know more. What else to expect though from someone who clearly is a paranoid nutcase?

The intitial noises coming from the experts are positive including about AZ. Still early days but as O.A.F.K.1.1 indicates, probably not as good as preventing infection and maybe not as good as preventing serious illness.

Sh*tSayer, you should check out the cases at a seafood plant which caused a spike in Covid numbers in Oregon. Masks were provided and mandated. Of the 376 workers, 124 tested positive and 95% were asymptomatic! This is a much higher asymptomatic rate than maybe 40% who are asymptomatic....and it is down to the lower inoculum.

You also have the case in Northwest Arkansas Facilities (chicken packing plant).

3748 workers were tested, 481 tested positive and 94.6% were asymptomatic.

This is why we have the rules and encouragement with masks. The trouble is the thickos on possibly the extreme left, and certainly on the right, think it is either all a conspiracy, Bill Gates wants to put a chip in you, or maybe Covid doesn't exist...

Which category do you fall under?

Nah, It was like 40%+ appeasement and they dropped that **** as soon as it was acceptable to do so.

You're such a dumb clown/loser that you confuse opinions pieces with evidence!

Let's review: Crickets. Not a single comment or quantification.

Crickets. Not a single comment or quantification.

Then the last one you finally answer:
Revealing you got it second hand out of other people's asses (confusing opinions pieces from people with your same clownness but more credentials, with actual evidence).

"It's not what you know that the problem, it's what you know for sure that isn't so."

Here's the thing. We've run this experiment on a grand scale, at 1,000,000x the scale of that meat packing plant. And we know the results: the masked countries did no better than the unmasked ones. Further, within country, adding mask mandate didn't move the R in any noticeable way. Many did worse than their non-masked peers or before masking. And we're talking deaths here, not cases, so that takes into account your cute inoculum [sic] theory.

People with any brains and perspective evaluate all the evidence according to its weight. Which is why I'm not fooled like Cuepee is by a mask study from the CDC that says that masks drop 95% of infectious particles (by count). Because of the huge data sets we have now, I know for a fact that one of two things is true: the study is very wrong or the big droplets that make up most of the volume don't matter for infection. It's why I'm not fooled by wild conjecture about a meat packing plant which the data doesn't show at all and has 10 alternate explanations, among them, prior partial immunity - from prior covid or related T Cell primers, few preexistings given that these are healthy line workers,, low loading from reasons other than masks such as the specific ventliation system, low loading generally from a process line spacing out vs how most people get (close personal contact). A million reasons that your pea brain is too small to even generate, let alone in the microseconds it took mine to. No sir, it must be the inoculum [sic] effects of masks!.

The world is full of endlessly conflicting data. Evaluating all the evidence according to its weight is why I understand things far better than you do or could.
I fall under the category of someone so far out of your intellectual league that you should be thanking whatever weird Gods you have that I paid attention to you.

Sh*tSayer, you are so full of crap it is unbelievable. I don't talk to nutters who belong in the looney hospital.

On block you go!

Yeah, I probably would too if I just got owned as hard as you did. lol.

Yankees got the J&J vaccine ftr. Good post.

This is just more Fauci gaslighting. The CDC should just do a mea culpa and state you really have no way to protect yourself other than getting vaccinated. Instead the CDC guidance imply that masks offer protection and thus wearing masks is a legitimate alternative to being vaccinated. The CDC’s guidance is harmful and counter productive.

This is the saddest part of all of this to me. I would hope everyone could agree we need factual information communicated effectively to the public.

Does anyone who is paying attention believe anything Fauci says?

that article and gaslighting,,,, really?

Fauci doesn't work at the CDC.

Yes really.

Who said he did? Troll on.