Have You Gotten Your Covid Vaccine? Thread.

[nOOky]

Things are looking up at last. Those of us fully vaccinated or soon to be will be living more normal lives as we look to put it past us. Those that are anti-vax will probably lie about it, and still have to endure the risk of getting it. Thankfully most workplaces will enforce mask wearing for those folks, and they cannot lie their way out of it because employers can ask if you have been vaccinated. So they will be walking around like they have a mark on their foreheads, the stupid ones relegated to being thought of as just that, stupid. Unable to travel to many places, although they never leave their little counties anyway probably.

Freedom, baby!

 

[ondma]

Based on what information?

SARS-CoV-2 was thought to be only transmitted by symptomatic patients (this is true for many, but not all, viral infections)
The extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was unknown (it wasn't known until serology studies started emerging in May)
The effectiveness of masking was mixed with some evidence of negative effects (as discussed)

So what evidence suggested universal masking at that point, taking in account how the virus was thought to be transmitted and who was at risk for infection?



That's really Monday Morning Quarterbacking it. The risk of masking making things worse was of serious concern back then, as I've already cited the important studies that suggested that outcome. Let's not forget the potential of "I'm wearing a mask, therefore it is safe and I can do stupid things again." Thankfully masking did offer protection for COVIDiots, but imagine what if it didn't?



Misleading in what way? The key stakeholders in this discussion all spoke to 1) shortage of masks 2) risks of wearing masks 3) how the virus was presumed to be transmitted. What exactly was misleading about those statements that was made at that time with the science that was known at that time?

And no, the CDC doesn't always err on additional precautions without evidence. Take RSV for example, a common respiratory virus. One of the scourges of pediatric hospitals and one of the most common reasons why children are admitted to the hospital each year. No masks are recommended.

I'm not going to touch the influence of the previous administration over some of the statements regarding recommendations, but we both know they influenced important aspects of how the pandemic progressed. I'm sure you and I see eye to eye on the negative influence they had.

At the very least, i think they should have made a more ambiguous statement instead of flat out saying masks provided no benefit. Something along the lines of "Masks have not yet been proven effective, but feel free to wear one if it is available."

 

[fskimospy]

Based on what information?

SARS-CoV-2 was thought to be only transmitted by symptomatic patients (this is true for many, but not all, viral infections)
The extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was unknown (it wasn't known until serology studies started emerging in May)
The effectiveness of masking was mixed with some evidence of negative effects (as discussed)

So what evidence suggested universal masking at that point, taking in account how the virus was thought to be transmitted and who was at risk for infection?

I didn't say the evidence suggested universal masking, I said the evidence did not warrant discouraging mask use.

That's really Monday Morning Quarterbacking it. The risk of masking making things worse was of serious concern back then, as I've already cited the important studies that suggested that outcome. Let's not forget the potential of "I'm wearing a mask, therefore it is safe and I can do stupid things again." Thankfully masking did offer protection for COVIDiots, but imagine what if it didn't?

This gets back into misleading people for their own good. Again I would ask you if you had to take a bet in spring of 2020 as to whether masks would make things better, make no difference, or make things worse, don't tell me you would have bet on 'make things worse'.

Misleading in what way? The key stakeholders in this discussion all spoke to 1) shortage of masks 2) risks of wearing masks 3) how the virus was presumed to be transmitted. What exactly was misleading about those statements that was made at that time with the science that was known at that time?

And no, the CDC doesn't always err on additional precautions without evidence. Take RSV for example, a common respiratory virus. One of the scourges of pediatric hospitals and one of the most common reasons why children are admitted to the hospital each year. No masks are recommended.

I'm not going to touch the influence of the previous administration over some of the statements regarding recommendations, but we both know they influenced important aspects of how the pandemic progressed. I'm sure you and I see eye to eye on the negative influence they had.

I agree that the CDC doesn't err on the side of additional precautions without evidence, after all undercooked meat can in fact make you sick. I'm saying that their default stance is when in doubt take greater precautions.

I'm also saying that masks are a well known, longstanding intervention that's known to generally limit the spread of infectious disease and discouraging their use was a bad idea. I mean if you look at southeast Asia in spring of 2020 everyone was wearing masks. I know mask wearing is more culturally common there and that accounts for some of it, but they have previous experience with exactly this sort of virus and public health measures encouraging mask wearing were essentially immediate. We had information available that allowed public health officials to make reasonable judgments as to what was most probable good public health policy and they didn't do it.

 

[abj13]

At the very least, i think they should have made a more ambiguous statement instead of flat out saying masks provided no benefit. Something along the lines of "Masks have not yet been proven effective, but feel free to wear one if it is available."

What do you think of Fauci's statement on this? The one everyone likes to point to, he made a very nuanced response:

 

[ondma]

I didn't say the evidence suggested universal masking, I said the evidence did not warrant discouraging mask use.



This gets back into misleading people for their own good. Again I would ask you if you had to take a bet in spring of 2020 as to whether masks would make things better, make no difference, or make things worse, don't tell me you would have bet on 'make things worse'.


I agree that the CDC doesn't err on the side of additional precautions without evidence, after all undercooked meat can in fact make you sick. I'm saying that their default stance is when in doubt take greater precautions.

I'm also saying that masks are a well known, longstanding intervention that's known to generally limit the spread of infectious disease and discouraging their use was a bad idea. I mean if you look at southeast Asia in spring of 2020 everyone was wearing masks. I know mask wearing is more culturally common there and that accounts for some of it, but they have previous experience with exactly this sort of virus and public health measures encouraging mask wearing were essentially immediate. We had information available that allowed public health officials to make reasonable judgments as to what was most probable good public health policy and they didn't do it.

That is the crux of the matter right there.

 

[Fenixgoon]

What do you think of Fauci's statement on this? The one everyone likes to point to, he made a very nuanced response:

Unfortunately, nuance is not helpful when it comes to communicating health policy to the public.
I'm not blaming Fauci by any means. Hell, I struggle to explain things to other engineers let alone a non-technical person.
Just that when it comes to communicating something to the public, it needs to be clear and unambiguous with as little possibility for misinterpretation as possible.

And at the time (march), I don't think we really knew just how effective masks really were for this particular virus.

Edit: to fski's point, a mask certainly wouldn't have made things worse early on before the science was clear.

 

[ondma]

What do you think of Fauci's statement on this? The one everyone likes to point to, he made a very nuanced response:

It wasnt nuanced at all. He specifically said people in the US should not be walking around with masks on. In fact he even contradicted himself. He said that a person with a known infection *should* be wearing a mask to prevent spreading the disease. It would logically follow, would it not, that wearing a mask would possibly be beneficial for someone who had the virus but was not yet exhibiting symptoms? I know their excuse was that asymptomatic transmission was unproven, but the logical assumption to me would be that asymptomatic transmission was possible, if not yet proven, hence wear a mask.

Edit: Fauci even doubled down on the statement by repeating it when asked "are you sure". And his statement of false security from a mask or accidental spreading is pure bull. A more appropriate statement would have simply been "dont let a mask lead you to a false sense of security."

Edit 2: I am not a Fauci hater like some, and think overall he probably did a very good job, especially considering he was being undermined the whole time by the Trump Administration. However, even the best of us make mistakes, and I strongly believe his early comments on mask wearing was a serious mistake.

 

[abj13]

I didn't say the evidence suggested universal masking, I said the evidence did not warrant discouraging mask use.

That doesn't change my question. What evidence suggests they should not have discouraged mask wearing? SARS-CoV-2 was thought to be only transmitted by symptomatic patients (this is true for many, but not all, viral infections). The extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was unknown (it wasn't known until serology studies started emerging in May). The effectiveness of masking was mixed with some evidence of negative effects (as discussed)

This gets back into misleading people for their own good. Again I would ask you if you had to take a bet in spring of 2020 as to whether masks would make things better, make no difference, or make things worse, don't tell me you would have bet on 'make things worse'.

Like I said, you're looking through the lens of what we know now, instead of what was known at that point in time. The study regarding the negative effects was of legitimate concern.

I'm also saying that masks are a well known, longstanding intervention that's known to generally limit the spread of infectious disease and discouraging their use was a bad idea.

We had information available that allowed public health officials to make reasonable judgments as to what was most probable good public health policy and they didn't do it.

I'm sorry, without a citation of such, you are contradicting the scientific literature at large. I already posted this in response to you back in January, but the literature was reviewed cloth masks that most of the scientific data came out of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, and virtually nothing had been published since. The effectiveness of masking has been studied in the healthcare setting, but the effectiveness of universal masking is incredibly understudied (until now).

The best example?

Here's the WHO statement about masks in 2009 at the onset of the H1N1 outbreak:

"In health-care settings, studies evaluating measures to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses suggest that the use of masks could reduce the transmission of influenza.2 Advice on the use of masks in health-care settings is accompanied by information on additional measures that may have impact on its effectiveness, such as training on correct use, regular supplies and proper disposal facilities. In the community, however, the benefits of wearing masks has not been established, especially in open areas, as opposed to enclosed spaces while in close contact with a person with influenza-like symptoms.

Nonetheless, many individuals may wish to wear masks in the home or community setting, particularly if they are in close contact with a person with influenza-like symptoms, for example while providing care to family members. Furthermore, using a mask can enable an individual with influenza-like symptoms to cover their mouth and nose to help contain respiratory droplets, a measure that is part of cough etiquette.

Using a mask incorrectly however, may actually increase the risk of transmission, rather than reduce it. If masks are to be used, this measure should be combined with other general measures to help prevent the human-to-human transmission of influenza, training on the correct use of masks and consideration of cultural and personal values.

https://www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/measures/Adviceusemaskscommunityrevised.pdf

The same concerns were held in 2009 as they were in 2020. The literature sadly had not significantly changed in the past decade.

 

[abj13]

And at the time (march), I don't think we really knew just how effective masks really were for this particular virus.

Edit: to fski's point, a mask certainly wouldn't have made things worse early on before the science was clear.

I've mentioned in previous posts, there were legitimate concerns masking would increase the infection rate. Even the WHO had these concerns based on previous studies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

 

[fskimospy]

That doesn't change my question. What evidence suggests they should not have discouraged mask wearing? SARS-CoV-2 was thought to be only transmitted by symptomatic patients (this is true for many, but not all, viral infections). The extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was unknown (it wasn't known until serology studies started emerging in May). The effectiveness of masking was mixed with some evidence of negative effects (as discussed)

This is reversing the burden of proof. Without the preponderance of evidence indicating that mask wearing was harmful, and it did not, they should not have discouraged it.

Like I said, you're looking through the lens of what we know now, instead of what was known at that point in time. The study regarding the negative effects was of legitimate concern.

I'm sorry, without a citation of such, you are contradicting the scientific literature at large. I already posted this in response to you back in January, but the literature was reviewed cloth masks that most of the scientific data came out of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, and virtually nothing had been published since. The effectiveness of masking has been studied in the healthcare setting, but the effectiveness of universal masking is incredibly understudied (until now).

The best example?

Here's the WHO statement about masks in 2009 at the onset of the H1N1 outbreak:

"In health-care settings, studies evaluating measures to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses suggest that the use of masks could reduce the transmission of influenza.2 Advice on the use of masks in health-care settings is accompanied by information on additional measures that may have impact on its effectiveness, such as training on correct use, regular supplies and proper disposal facilities. In the community, however, the benefits of wearing masks has not been established, especially in open areas, as opposed to enclosed spaces while in close contact with a person with influenza-like symptoms.

Nonetheless, many individuals may wish to wear masks in the home or community setting, particularly if they are in close contact with a person with influenza-like symptoms, for example while providing care to family members. Furthermore, using a mask can enable an individual with influenza-like symptoms to cover their mouth and nose to help contain respiratory droplets, a measure that is part of cough etiquette.

Using a mask incorrectly however, may actually increase the risk of transmission, rather than reduce it. If masks are to be used, this measure should be combined with other general measures to help prevent the human-to-human transmission of influenza, training on the correct use of masks and consideration of cultural and personal values.

https://www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/measures/Adviceusemaskscommunityrevised.pdf

The same concerns were held in 2009 as they were in 2020. The literature sadly had not significantly changed in the past decade.

I’m confused, if anything this citation supports my position? It says masks probably don’t do much in the open but may be helpful in interior spaces. That’s a really good reason not to discourage their use!

While the concern is that incorrect mask usage causes problems is valid, the obvious answer is to educate the public about proper mask usage, not to discourage it!

Again, why did other countries with prior experience with these sort of viruses undertake this intervention so quickly? Were their health officials incompetent and dangerous or did maybe their experience inform them in a way our health officials were slow to understand?

 

[abj13]

It wasnt nuanced at all. He specifically said people in the US should not be walking around with masks on. In fact he even contradicted himself. He said that a person with a known infection *should* be wearing a mask to prevent spreading the disease. It would logically follow, would it not, that wearing a mask would possibly be beneficial for someone who had the virus but was not yet exhibiting symptoms? I know their excuse was that asymptomatic transmission was unproven, but the logical assumption to me would be that asymptomatic transmission was possible, if not yet proven, hence wear a mask.

Edit: Fauci even doubled down on the statement by repeating it when asked "are you sure". And his statement of false security from a mask or accidental spreading is pure bull. A more appropriate statement would have simply been "dont let a mask lead you to a false sense of security."

I think you're misinterpreting what was known back then. There was no evidence that there was significant transmission of the virus by asymptomatically infected people. Nor was it known how many were actually asymptomatic. There are many viruses in which asymptomatic transmission is of very low risk.

And his statement about the false security is evidence based.

 

[fskimospy]

I think there’s a tendency in medicine towards requirements of certainty and scientific evidence that can be really harmful in cases like this.

Who gives a shit what’s proven! This is a public health emergency with thousands or millions of lives at stake immediately. You don’t have time for certainty, you take what’s available and you make your best guess. The best guess in spring of 2020 was clearly that masks were helpful. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, you can find people pointing to Asia at that exact time saying ‘why are we discouraging this’

 

[sportage]

Well somethings up. Fox is actually upset that the mask restrictions have been lessened. I thought Fox didn't agree with mask wearing but now they seem to have flipped flopped on that. Could it have anything to do with the lessening haven happened during Biden's watch? So let me grasp this.... if under Biden masks are required then Fox gripes, however if under Biden masks are no longer required then Fox has a problem with THAT as well? I think we have a solution for Fox and their on again off again mask confusion, a paper sack. Have the Fox News staff just put a paper sack over their head, draw a smiley face on the bag, and there you have it. The true Fox News organization.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well somethings up. Fox is actually upset that the mask restrictions have been lessened. I thought Fox didn't agree with mask wearing but now they seem to have flipped flopped on that. Could it have anything to do with the lessening haven happened during Biden's watch? So let me grasp this.... if under Biden masks are required then Fox gripes, however if under Biden masks are no longer required then Fox has a problem with THAT as well? I think we have a solution for Fox and their on again off again mask confusion, a paper sack. Have the Fox News staff just put a paper sack over their head, draw a smiley face on the bag, and there you have it. The true Fox News organization.

This was to be expected. It's Fn Fox for F sakes!

 

[abj13]

This is reversing the burden of proof. Without the preponderance of evidence indicating that mask wearing was harmful, and it did not, they should not have discouraged it.

So your argument is that the CDC and other should recommend an intervention, without bona fide evidence in support of it, and despite evidence suggesting harm? That's what you are saying.

I’m confused, if anything this citation supports my position? It says masks probably don’t do much in the open but may be helpful in interior spaces. That’s a really good reason not to discourage their use!

While the concern is that incorrect mask usage causes problems is valid, the obvious answer is to educate the public about proper mask usage, not to discourage it!

Sadly what may work in the hospital often doesn't work in non-medical settings. In fact this has been studied, as I've posted to you in the past, high rates of non-compliance with proper masking wearing resulted in the interventions to be relatively ineffective.

Again, why did other countries with prior experience with these sort of viruses undertake this intervention so quickly? Were their health officials incompetent and dangerous or did maybe their experience inform them in a way our health officials were slow to understand?

What scientific evidence existed in 2020 to support universal masking that Asian countries were following and the US ignored? What evidence suggested risk-based masking was insufficient compared to universal masking?

 

[abj13]

I think there’s a tendency in medicine towards requirements of certainty and scientific evidence that can be really harmful in cases like this.

Who gives a shit what’s proven! This is a public health emergency with thousands or millions of lives at stake immediately. You don’t have time for certainty, you take what’s available and you make your best guess. The best guess in spring of 2020 was clearly that masks were helpful. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, you can find people pointing to Asia at that exact time saying ‘why are we discouraging this’

Again, you are rewriting history. Why do you think this study, which showed masking increased the risk of influenza-like illnesses by 13-fold, didn't matter in 2020?

Only after the fact you are writing that "the best guess in spring of 2020 was clearly that masks were helpful." This was not the thought at the time. Even you contradict your own statement:

"I didn't say the evidence suggested universal masking."

 

[PingSpike]

I think there’s a tendency in medicine towards requirements of certainty and scientific evidence that can be really harmful in cases like this.

Who gives a shit what’s proven! This is a public health emergency with thousands or millions of lives at stake immediately. You don’t have time for certainty, you take what’s available and you make your best guess. The best guess in spring of 2020 was clearly that masks were helpful. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, you can find people pointing to Asia at that exact time saying ‘why are we discouraging this’

Yeah, its nonsense. The support of the early discouragement of masks always boils down to the circular: We don't know if they work so don't wear them because we need them really badly for healthcare workers! You don't even need to be that intelligent for that contradictory position to set off alarm bells. And we had mask shortages and hoarding anyway so it didn't even work, all it accomplished was an own goal on the CDC's credibility at the start of the pandemic.

And if people are to stupid to wear masks so its a waste of time, why did they change the recommendation? Don't tell me its because people suddenly got smarter because that is obviously false.

 

[abj13]

And if people are to stupid to wear masks so its a waste of time, why did they change the recommendation? Don't tell me its because people suddenly got smarter because that is obviously false.

It changed because the science started filling in the knowledge gaps. Wouldn't you be more concerned if they didn't change the recommendation despite new the scientific evidence?

 

[zinfamous]

VS the 590,000+ dead that never got a chance to get the vaccine you stupid motherfucking shit stain on society.

This might be unfair to some of the more affable shitstains out there.

 

[zinfamous]

It's still personal choice that every American should have a right to make.

Your rights end where mine begin. Of course you accept that.

and go fuck yourself.

 

[zinfamous]

I can't stand Trump, i never supported him and never will. I never watch Foxnews, as they are idiots and 99.9% of everything the say is propaganda.

liar

 

[fskimospy]

Well somethings up. Fox is actually upset that the mask restrictions have been lessened. I thought Fox didn't agree with mask wearing but now they seem to have flipped flopped on that. Could it have anything to do with the lessening haven happened during Biden's watch? So let me grasp this.... if under Biden masks are required then Fox gripes, however if under Biden masks are no longer required then Fox has a problem with THAT as well? I think we have a solution for Fox and their on again off again mask confusion, a paper sack. Have the Fox News staff just put a paper sack over their head, draw a smiley face on the bag, and there you have it. The true Fox News organization.

I remember before the election it was that democrats were implementing restrictions to hurt Trump. Then a few months back they were saying the democrats would keep these restrictions in place permanently so they could make us all into communists or whatever. Now they are mad about them being discontinued? Lol.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, you are rewriting history. Why do you think this study, which showed masking increased the risk of influenza-like illnesses by 13-fold, didn't matter in 2020?

Only after the fact you are writing that "the best guess in spring of 2020 was clearly that masks were helpful." This was not the thought at the time. Even you contradict your own statement:

"I didn't say the evidence suggested universal masking."

I was saying that was not my argument, which it wasn’t.

As for your study, it also supports my position? I never advocated for cloth masks.

 

[fskimospy]

So your argument is that the CDC and other should recommend an intervention, without bona fide evidence in support of it, and despite evidence suggesting harm? That's what you are saying.

No, I’m saying that the CDC should not discourage an intervention without the preponderance of the evidence suggesting they should discourage it.

Is it your claim that the medical literature in spring of 2020 indicated that wearing masks, real masks, not bandanas or whatever, increased the spread of respiratory disease like SARS? I find that extremely unlikely.

Sadly what may work in the hospital often doesn't work in non-medical settings. In fact this has been studied, as I've posted to you in the past, high rates of non-compliance with proper masking wearing resulted in the interventions to be relatively ineffective.

Again, that’s a good case for taking measure to improve compliance, not to discourage effective interventions.

Also, your study says less effective, not that it makes things worse, which also supports my point!

What scientific evidence existed in 2020 to support universal masking that Asian countries were following and the US ignored? What evidence suggested risk-based masking was insufficient compared to universal masking?

You linked to it yourself! This relates back to my previous point about the blind spot medical professionals have when it comes to public health. The evidence you linked about the effectiveness of masking in health care settings indicates efficacy in a general sense where it is more probable than not that they are effective. It’s an emergency so you go with your best guess and if you’re wrong you adjust It’s also an emergency so you don’t bother with the distinction between risk based and universal because of asymmetric risks.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, its nonsense. The support of the early discouragement of masks always boils down to the circular: We don't know if they work so don't wear them because we need them really badly for healthcare workers! You don't even need to be that intelligent for that contradictory position to set off alarm bells. And we had mask shortages and hoarding anyway so it didn't even work, all it accomplished was an own goal on the CDC's credibility at the start of the pandemic.

And if people are to stupid to wear masks so its a waste of time, why did they change the recommendation? Don't tell me its because people suddenly got smarter because that is obviously false.

Yes, and while I agree the evidence suggested that cloth masks could be worse than nothing those aren’t the masks under discussion and wasn’t what Fauci was talking about. It’s not like nurses and doctors were going to wear uncle Frank’s bandanna, they were talking about medical grade masks.

And if cloth masks were the real concern they could have simply said ‘if you’re going to wear a mask only wear a real one’. Instead they discouraged them generally. A tremendous mistake.