Coronavirus

[CatB]

And they still can’t get it to work in hong Kong :
“A study of COVID-19 incidence in Hong Kong noted that face mask compliance was very high, at 95.7 to 97.2% across regions studied, and that COVID-19 clusters in recreational ‘mask-off’ settings were significantly more common than in workplace “mask-on” settings (35).”

You do understand that this quote specifically says masking works, right?
It clearly says that COVID-19 clusters were significantly more common when people were unmasked in recreational settings than when they were masked at work.

I've left most of the rebuttals to the more qualified and patient responders on this board, but now you're just being ridiculous.

There have been *so* many informative and respectful debates and so much useful information sharing on this thread, but your contributions are annoying. I have so much respect for all the medical professionals that have patiently and gently corrected all of your misguided posts. Those of us who have suffered (lost friends to Covid, lost friends and family because the healthcare system was overloaded with people who were too selfish and/or stupid to wear a mask or get vaccinated) are fed up with this nonsense.

Please, go back to page ONE of this thread and re-read. This community explained exactly what medical science knew, did and learned. I learned so much about "viral load" and the swiss cheese analogy still works, even though the behavior of Delta and Omicron have changed. Your argument that masking doesn't work is like saying "masking doesn't work because swiss cheese has holes" which makes you the misinformation mouse.

 

[scottf200]

I fully realized EFD often goes overboard but he does reference sources that can be looked at directly.

Re: China's new policies and outcomes now and for the following several months
Looks like some of the videos came from https://twitter.com/jenniferzeng97

Thread by @DrEricDing on Thread Reader App

@DrEricDing: ⚠️THERMONUCLEAR BAD—Hospitals completely overwhelmed in China ever since restrictions dropped. Epidemiologist estimate >60% of 🇨🇳 & 10% of Earth’s population likely infected over next 90 days. Deaths li...…

threadreaderapp.com

Dec 18 - jenniferzeng97

https://twitter.com/x/status/1604654633556840448

 

[BigNerd]

Let's keep it topical... mask are like FSD. Not 100% but it helps.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If these numbers are to be believed (I am very skeptical and would want to hear from someone I trust who lives there to know what is happening), it looks like perhaps WE were the ones who were responsible for the lockdowns all along! Why is no one out and about???

https://twitter.com/x/status/1604832022584651776

They should know there is no way to stop this, but they should get mRNA vaccines, as many as possible, wear N95 masks, and live it up.

The biggest failing of the CCP here (aside from the mRNA and lack of vaccination fiasco), is the failure to test N95 mask efficacy via challenge trials, and then force widespread adoption of N95 masks in enclosed spaces, with even stricter rules for those in contact with the vulnerable. It certainly won’t stop spread but I am curious whether it would help in a country with strict enforcement abilities.

Of course allegedly that is not their strategy. No curve flattening efforts at all, allegedly. I’m not convinced that will work if the people don’t cooperate. Seems better to me to just actively work to flatten and just get people to live as normally as possible, with some confidence that there is still an effort to minimize infections (without the ridiculous (at this point) restrictive nonsense).

I wonder if they’ll get more than 1 million deaths. Depends on that vaccine efficacy and I guess we’ll never know. Definitely should be better than the baseline ~7-10 million expectation. I would take the over on 1 million.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Let's keep it topical... mask are like FSD. Not 100% but it helps.

Anecdotal, and meaningless of course, but I still have not heard of a single case of someone who definitively caught COVID while wearing an N95 mask. Either personally or in any news story.

More anecdata: I know five people who have been fastidious about wearing decent masks indoors whenever possible, and none have yet contracted COVID. Notably none of them have kids which allows better control of their vectors.

Obviously these things must eventually come to an end. But in a very small meaningless observational trial the masks seem helpful.

 

[SDRick]

Hypothetically, if this virus was created (and we had the lab notes etc.), would this type of information provide any further insights in protocols/treatments/prevention?

 

[BigNerd]

Hypothetically, if this virus was created (and we had the lab notes etc.), would this type of information provide any further insights in protocols/treatments/prevention?

It would have to involve sending Brad Pitt to find Patient Zero, getting the blood from Matt Damon, and then getting Dustin Hoffman to create a miracle cure in 10 minutes.

 

[madodel]

It would have to involve sending Brad Pitt to find Patient Zero, getting the blood from Matt Damon, and then getting Dustin Hoffman to create a miracle cure in 10 minutes.

Sounds like more of a job for Austin Powers.

 

[DrGriz]

Hypothetically, if this virus was created (and we had the lab notes etc.), would this type of information provide any further insights in protocols/treatments/prevention?

China provided the genetic code practically instantly, which allowed us to fast-track vaccine development. I can't think of any way to use the information you are bringing up to combat the situation today.

Just result in more finger-pointing.

 

[PACEMD]

It would have to involve sending Brad Pitt to find Patient Zero, getting the blood from Matt Damon, and then getting Dustin Hoffman to create a miracle cure in 10 minutes.

Those documentaries about viral pandemics from Pitt, Damon, and Hoffman were instructive, to say the least, however, neglected some fundamentally important aspects of the overall picture. For example, all those films, without exception, failed to deal with the reality of toilet paper shortages. What's up with that sh*t? I find that highly suspicious........Chinese?

 

[madodel]

Those documentaries about viral pandemics from Pitt, Damon, and Hoffman were instructive, to say the least, however, neglected some fundamentally important aspects of the overall picture. For example, all those films, without exception, failed to deal with the reality of toilet paper shortages. What's up with that sh*t? I find that highly suspicious........Chinese?

Well I learned my lesson. I stocked up on cases of the Ultra Soft for the next one.

 

[wdolson]

Another way to look at the data is that Australia beat the virus out of the community multiples times (and we did) until they mandated vaccines and got steamrolled.

First off the vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce the chances of death from infection. Australia closed down their borders during the worst of the pandemic which allowed them to prevent COVID from doing much damage until the vaccine was available. Once a significant portion of the population was vaccinated they opened their borders again and COVID came in with the people coming to Australia.

It's easy to draw the wrong conclusion from one data point.

 

[BigNerd]

failed to deal with the reality of toilet paper shortages.

Or lemon exports. Also... no one yelling at others about masks.

 

[Jeff N]

First off the vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce the chances of death from infection.

As I think PACEMD mentioned recently, (mRNA) vaccines were initially highly effective at preventing infection but became less so over time as more variants showed up that were adapted to evade neutralization by antibodies formed as a result of older variants. Even today, vaccines do indeed prevent some infections. Saying (Covid-19) vaccines “don’t prevent infections” as a blanket statement is misleading.

I see some virologists and MDs make this kind of statement (such as Dr. Paul Offit) and I don’t think it’s helpful.

 

[juk]

The joke is, you demand RCT level evidence when a study doesn't support your conclusions but accept uncontrolled surveys as evidence when you imagine they support you.

"COVID-19 clusters in recreational ‘mask-off’ settings were significantly more common than in workplace “mask-on” settings." That means masks work. Did you understand that when you quoted it?

From the article I linked, and to reiterate what I have said now several times:

The burden of proof is always on the intervention.

Unless you've got a really really bad intervention and still want to get published, say your intervention increases risk 416% but you dont want to say that, you make that the baseline and the non intervention then has a reduced risk of 24%. Like this study:

Protection from previous natural infection compared with mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in Qatar: a retrospective cohort study

Previous natural infection was associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Vaccination remains the safest and most optimal tool for protecting against infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death...

www.thelancet.com

The perversion of science is strong here.

 

[juk]

You do understand that this quote specifically says masking works, right?
It clearly says that COVID-19 clusters were significantly more common when people were unmasked in recreational settings than when they were masked at work.

I've left most of the rebuttals to the more qualified and patient responders on this board, but now you're just being ridiculous.

There have been *so* many informative and respectful debates and so much useful information sharing on this thread, but your contributions are annoying. I have so much respect for all the medical professionals that have patiently and gently corrected all of your misguided posts. Those of us who have suffered (lost friends to Covid, lost friends and family because the healthcare system was overloaded with people who were too selfish and/or stupid to wear a mask or get vaccinated) are fed up with this nonsense.

Please, go back to page ONE of this thread and re-read. This community explained exactly what medical science knew, did and learned. I learned so much about "viral load" and the swiss cheese analogy still works, even though the behavior of Delta and Omicron have changed. Your argument that masking doesn't work is like saying "masking doesn't work because swiss cheese has holes" which makes you the misinformation mouse.

If it said that, why does their conclusion say masks "may" work?

 

[juk]

First off the vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce the chances of death from infection. Australia closed down their borders during the worst of the pandemic which allowed them to prevent COVID from doing much damage until the vaccine was available. Once a significant portion of the population was vaccinated they opened their borders again and COVID came in with the people coming to Australia.

It's easy to draw the wrong conclusion from one data point.

I'm old enough to remember when they did prevent infection. Also when they transitioned to "reduces the chances of death from infection" with no evidence to back that up.

I didn't draw a conclusion, all I did was give an accurate timeline of events.

 

[wdolson]

As I think PACEMD mentioned recently, (mRNA) vaccines were initially highly effective at preventing infection but became less so over time as more variants showed up that were adapted to evade neutralization by antibodies formed as a result of older variants. Even today, vaccines do indeed prevent some infections. Saying (Covid-19) vaccines “don’t prevent infections” as a blanket statement is misleading.

I see some virologists and MDs make this kind of statement (such as Dr. Paul Offit) and I don’t think it’s helpful.

From the start they didn't prevent infection like the measles or polio vaccines. With the earlier variants the vaccines did prevent infections better than they did after the mutations, but the vaccines still reduce the chances of hospitalization and serious consequences with the newer variants.

It seems every time I try to write a short post, clarifications are needed.

 

[DrGriz]

The burden of proof is always on the intervention.

Says the person who told us without evidence that mass vaccination caused the epidemic to blow up in Australia.

Admit it and we can move on: You won't accept any level of evidence on masking that can be ethically obtained. That's where we are.

Unless you've got a really really bad intervention and still want to get published, say your intervention increases risk 416% but you dont want to say that, you make that the baseline and the non intervention then has a reduced risk of 24%. Like this study:

Protection from previous natural infection compared with mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in Qatar: a retrospective cohort study​

Previous natural infection was associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Vaccination remains the safest and most optimal tool for protecting against infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death...
www.thelancet.com

The perversion of science is strong here.

I am not surprised to see that natural infection is more protective (more antigens to latch onto), at least for a time (the study looked at 300 days) than mRNA vaccination, which only addresses one spike protein. Which mutates.

You left out this statement from the article from Lancet, which might affect one's decision whether or not to vaccinate, depending on where they are at (previously uninfected, or having just recovered):

Natural infection can lead to COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death at the time of primary infection, and long COVID-19 after the infection, which are risks not present with vaccination.

Of course, if you are already dead from covid you shouldn't bother to vaccinate.

 

[juk]

Says the person who told us without evidence that mass vaccination caused the epidemic to blow up in Australia.

Admit it and we can move on: You won't accept any level of evidence on masking that can be ethically obtained. That's where we are.


I am not surprised to see that natural infection is more protective (more antigens to latch onto), at least for a time (the study looked at 300 days) than mRNA vaccination, which only addresses one spike protein. Which mutates.

You left out this statement from the article from Lancet, which might affect one's decision whether or not to vaccinate, depending on where they are at (previously uninfected, or having just recovered):



Of course, if you are already dead from covid you shouldn't bother to vaccinate.

Once again I simply gave a timeline, what you read into that was on you.

Once again we should do the numbers. What level of death in primary infection makes up for the 416% increase in death risk from vaccination?

Is that lower than the known risk of primary infection, bearing in mind that it's unlikely to be 75.75% from the other study?