The questions have always been:
A. How much?
B. At what cost?
and C. Relative to what other factors?
Ps calling you an authoritarian isn’t much of a personal attack. You have an authoritarian streak even if you won’t admit it to yourself
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
A. How much?
B. At what cost?
and C. Relative to what other factors?
Ps calling you an authoritarian isn’t much of a personal attack. You have an authoritarian streak even if you won’t admit it to yourself
There are good estimates for how much masks reduce transmission.
Masks reduce transmission by 70-79% for transmission between households, and 0% for transmission within a household. Works out to a 45-54% reduction overall.
At what cost? About $40 for a 20 pack of K94. Or $10 for a decent cloth one.
Seems clear enough.
As
Passed a guy on laurel today selling styled masks on a sidewalk stand. Had still a lot of masks. Doubt they are on consignment. He’s got maybe a handful of months of business left even in California so hope for his sake he didn’t go all in.
as usual you overestimate the benefit by assuming perfect use, not discounting for long term use and conflating the benefits of distancing. You underestimate the costs such as screaming 2 year olds and austistic kids, the enviro damage and the social damage
Passed a guy on laurel today selling styled masks on a sidewalk stand. Had still a lot of masks. Doubt they are on consignment. He’s got maybe a handful of months of business left even in California so hope for his sake he didn’t go all in.
That's not even close to being true but you like to paint a picture with an aisle down the middle. It's likely that many more people wear the mask but find it rather silly. Rather than cause a scene , they remain civil and respectful of others, they wear a mask. The extremists farthest from the aisle are always the loudest (and usually the smallest groups)
Most people I know wear a mask because it's the decent thing to do (right now) . There is enough "science" on both sides of the aisle to drive anyone crazy - and that's what's happened.
I flew during Covid and likely wouldn't have flown if masks weren't mandatory and the middle seat wasn't open. This despite the fact I'm skeptical of mask mandates. On the other hand you have the mask addicts who swear by the science that masks are very effective but wouldn't even consider getting on a plane. Why is that? It's because it has nothing to do with science and everything to do fear. Fear corrupts rational thought.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
So does power
Count me as a mask addict who won’t fly.
I believe masks, worn as most people wear them, reduce risk by about 70%. So, they work, but not perfectly.
If a location, like an airplane, is high risk, then a 70% risk reduction still does not bring it within my own tolerance.
Read “risk tolerance“ as “willingness to be part of the problem”. I am not in a particularly high risk group. The main risk for me is that I would give it to someone else. But the logic is the same.
The nz study kicking posted recently should put to rest the idea that masks protect you on a plane. People got Ill despite spacing and mask usage. It’s probably because of the length of time on a flight. From the bus studies early on, the middle seat might have helped but 2 seats over is still close not to mention who is sitting behind you or across the aisle. It’s likely that while on a macro level these policies might reduce transmissions on a plane, on a micro level they don’t do much to protect you other than make you feel safe because it’s still up to chance...someone sick sits near you you have a good shot at getting covid. it’s been the same experience in factories, slaughterhouses and farms. The masks on a micro level seem to help most against short term exposures like at the grocery store or hair dresser but on a macro level that would have relatively little impact on overall numbers.
If you are wearing a cloth mask and the ill person is wearing a cloth mask and seated behind you, no way the risk is reduced 70% to you. Even the mannequin simulations under perfect short term mask wearing conditions didn’t find that. Macro and micro effects sometimes diverge...this is likely one of those situations.
Even if it is a 70% reduction, you may be measuring the difference between being infected ten times over versus being infected three times over.
It is nice to lower the viral load, but it’s still not safe.
Like I said, I don’t plan to fly until vaccinated.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Seriously, I read that as a joke and I kept waiting for @dad4 to let everyone know he was joking. Guess not.
No, I don't think he's trolling. I don't believe espola is trolling either. I think he is what he presents here.
Desert Hound
DA
We knew surface transmission wasn't an issue for quite some time.
And yet it has taken us till now till the CDC makes the announcement.
www.dailymail.co.uk
And yet it has taken us till now till the CDC makes the announcement.
CDC tells businesses to 'end the hygiene theater'
'People can be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 through contact with surfaces and objects, however... the risk by this route of transmission is actually low,' said CDC director Dr Walensky.
I thought the same thing. I could say a lot about what he said but I'll just say it's very sad that people have that mentality.
Desert Hound
DA
I think the above is very telling.
I believe you are in your 40s and healthy. As such you have no real risk of dying from covid.
You believe masks are effective.
And yet you wouldn't fly.
The data says you are fine. You won't because fear overrides the real world data.
And that suddenly makes clear and encapsulates why you advocate what you do. I kept wondering why you don't adjust based on real world results. Now I know.
We know kids and teachers in class is not a problem. You are a teacher and you say you follow the math. I don't see you advocating for fully opening schools. As a matter of fact you have gone rather silent in this area.
I now know why. It isn't the data that drives you. It is fear and uncertainty.
Half joke, half serious.
I do think we should not fly until vaccinated. Given that I also think we shouldn’t go to bars or restaurants, that ought not be a surprise.
Now run the numbers on the risk, through me, to other people.
I am not asking whether I personally am at risk. I am not.
I am asking whether my actions cause significant harm to others. I wish you were capable of doing the same.
We knew surface transmission wasn't an issue for quite some time.
And yet it has taken us till now till the CDC makes the announcement.
CDC tells businesses to 'end the hygiene theater'
'People can be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 through contact with surfaces and objects, however... the risk by this route of transmission is actually low,' said CDC director Dr Walensky.
This is why people don't trust government and have a low opinion of government agencies. Businesses have been diverting $$$$ to be compliant IAW federal and local agencies. Now turns out that it was a waste of money -oops, sorry business man, sunk cost, my bad.
"Hygiene theater" has caused product shortages, driven up pricing, and cost small biz to lay off workers or reduce pay to account for the cost of materials. Wait until we figure out that hand sanitizer was also a bad idea.
Too soon????Assuming you are a teacher, not sure if that is only a label placed on you by others, why haven’t you chosen to be vaccinated?
It would seem that you advocate for vaccination/mitigation and should be eligible. Why not?
Every teacher I know has been vaccinated, the County has made it fairly easy for them. In fact, I would say the majority of my friends and family have at least their first shot (80% effective against Covid), including my 17 yo daughter. If you want a vaccine you can get one if you put a little effort into it. There are a lot of different options although going through your healthcare provider isn't a very good one in San Diego.