To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

[The SnowShow]

Is the "science" finally coming around?

Biden COVID advisor Michael Osterholm on CNN today: “We know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out."
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/statu...61427210006541

Does he have an opinion on the disposable medical masks? Are they a step up from cloth?

[k2skier112]

But you are literally feeding them.

My problem is I "suffer fools gladly". I must not even look, their stupidity is literally killing people

[LongShortLong]

Does someone with a better memory that me remember a post in this thread for a positivity vs incidence paper that gave a conversion factor for true incidence? I remember thinking I didn't want to play with that magic math when it was posted... but now my local positivity is so high that I am nowhere near trusting my local incidence numbers.

bodywhomper posted the article here
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...13#post6154213

I attempted to grok and apply it here
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...99#post6155799

Looking over it now, I remember being upset at the authors for not defining terms. For example, it looks like I decided prevalence means what fraction of people have infectious cases. Since people are typically infectious for 5 days (number out of my hat), that means the number of positive cases is multiplied by 5, and by the undercount caused because testing misses some cases. Taking this into account, the paper's prediction seemed reasonable (fits in my confirmation bias bubble). It's entirely possible the authors mean something else.

It's also non-obvious to me why their model should be correct, though I agree they fitted it on other more complex, accepted models. Delta may have a different infectious period, so does the model need to be re-fitted? idk. It just seems fishy that their power factor is exactly 0.5 and the constant multiplier is 1. Fishy doesn't mean wrong - maybe disease specific parameters drop out. I ran it for my county today using an (artificial) positivity of 1% and the result looks high - I would guess 1% means we're catching almost all the cases.

Anyway, use with care.

[MultiVerse]

Does he have an opinion on the disposable medical masks? Are they a step up from cloth?

A lot of it depends on fit. Filtration efficiency for a surgical mask with bands over the ear has about 38% filtration efficiency. Twisting the loops for a tighter fit or using a clip to hold the bands behind your head increases efficiency anywhere from 60% to 65%.


N95 respirator type masks are the most effective at filtering viral particles. Which, for anyone not bothering with the OP's link, is Michael Osterholm's argument in the video... that we can do better than cloth masks. No surprise, this is what the science has said all along.

[jono]

I just tried on a P100 (because smoke). N95 is a decent benchmark but I'm a little surprised I didn't have one of these before for various things. Easy to breathe through, good seal and comfortable--though I might be tempted to put a gaitor under it if I didn't need a perfect seal and of course the exhale is unfiltered. Maybe it's the mask for wooley.

That said, the main advantage of a crappy mask is that (of the air that misses the filter) it alters direction so you aren't breathing the air from someone's face (or vise versa). Like being further apart. Although less dosage obviously helps--it's not like we need to stop every virus.

[seano732]

I just tried on a P100 (because smoke). N95 is a decent benchmark but I'm a little surprised I didn't have one of these before for various things. Easy to breathe through, good seal and comfortable--though I might be tempted to put a gaitor under it if I didn't need a perfect seal and of course the exhale is unfiltered. Maybe it's the mask for wooley.

That said, the main advantage of a crappy mask is that (of the air that misses the filter) it alters direction so you aren't breathing the air from someone's face (or vise versa). Like being further apart. Although less dosage obviously helps--it's not like we need to stop every virus.

You need N95s, I’ll get you N95s, Jono.....

[dunfree]

N95 respirator type masks are the most effective at filtering viral particles. Which, for anyone not bothering with the OP's link, is Michael Osterholm's argument in the video... that we can do better than cloth masks. No surprise, this is what the science has said all along.

Cloth masks are of course not all the same either. Some are more useful than others - but they were a general response to the shortage of n95s at the beginning.

[jono]

You need N95s, I’ll get you N95s, Jono.....

Heh..thanks for the offer, I'll bet you can! (With polish?) We've got a few knocking around and my wife wears KN95's for work and seems to like their fit better, so I think all the N95's are mine now. But my mom seems to think P100's are a good gift during smoke season, so now we have filtration for every season.

I'm still hoping someone pops for a Narwhal, though--I wanna see that in the bike pics thread!

[wooley12]

It's fun tho! They're such idiots.

Have the balls or decency to fill his inbox with your fun and games replies while real people die because of RJ. Or be a cunt like RJ. Choices.

[PB]

What I found was:

CA - 63k (164 per 100)
NY - 53k (279 per 100)
TX - 51k (179 per 100)
FL - 38k (180 per 100)

Total COVID-19 Deaths

This is what rate is, Fallacious Fellator, which you claimed no one had the gonads to post.

Pawned by KQ of the XX persuasion.

[jono]

This is what rate is, Fallacious Fellator, which you claimed no one had the gonads to post.

Pawned by KQ of the XX persuasion.

Psst. She (the Estonian she, not KQ) still thinks those numbers need to be adjusted for population.

Wooley has a point, but given the incredible level of personal debasement on display here lately I have to admit that, for instance, being called a dumbass by someone that thinks you don't need a shingles vaccine if you've had chickenpox seems kind of rare and memorable.

[The SnowShow]

Cloth masks are of course not all the same either. Some are more useful than others - but they were a general response to the shortage of n95s at the beginning.

We’ve been using cloth with a filter that we change out. KN95 for anything inside that’s super crowded, before getting vaccinated. Wondering if the cloth + filter falls under “pretty effective”.

[wooley12]

Going to a pro soccer game this week and I'll be sporting an N95 with a one way valve covered by a custom printed poly mask with a 2.5 filter and a message that I'd like to be wrong about.

[old goat]

The quality of the mask is not the only thing. They have to fit right and they need to be tight. I see KN95's with ear loops--I can't imagine they fit tightly enough.

[ill-advised strategy]

Totally missing the point, but that's no surprise for someone who can't read a graph.

Aha, but what about this graph!

[wooley12]

Thanks doc. You made my day complete. I'll opt for good as I can be if I can't have perfect. Do you wear an avy pack inbounds? Why not. People die every year.

[riser4]

Heh..thanks for the offer, I'll bet you can! (With polish?) We've got a few knocking around and my wife wears KN95's for work and seems to like their fit better, so I think all the N95's are mine now. But my mom seems to think P100's are a good gift during smoke season, so now we have filtration for every season.

I'm still hoping someone pops for a Narwhal, though--I wanna see that in the bike pics thread!

It's Narwall. And their are too reasons I haven't bought one. First, I wear glasses. Second is the beard. Ya, I know, beard is no bueno with the N95 as well for proper fit.

[LongShortLong]

Thanks doc. You made my day complete. I'll opt for good as I can be if I can't have perfect. Do you wear an avy pack inbounds? Why not. People die every year.

I did my research, and I have a 99.99999% chance of surviving the avalanche virus (37 dead out of 340,000,000). No need for protection. Avalanche virus was created by big BCA to sell packs and beacons. Don't be a sheep. Let's huck some backcountry cornices!

[wooley12]

Unless my sarcasm meter is off, and it's actually broken. First off, fuck you. Secondly, fuck you. Still don't get it? Send me a pm.

[The AD]

The amazing thing is--if you look at a map of where the new cases are--it's very clear that places with low vaccination rates are by and large getting hammered, but even this isn't enough for people to realize they should get the shots. People are just incredibly hard headed.

[LongShortLong]

Looking at last month's San Diego data for 30-49 yo's because it's easy to select that group from both tables.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/conte...n%20Status.pdf
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/conte...ge%20Group.pdf

Fully vaxxed : infected
566,430 : 420
Not fully vaxxed : infected
322,718 : 3,486

1 - ((420/566,430) / (3486/322,718)) = 93% efficacy vs infection.
Against hospitalization for all ages looks like 97%, not enough margin to show work.

Doc Fauci, gimme ouchie, less jabbering and more jabbing, thanks.

* Correct me if I screwed up efficacy formula. I'm only a dentist.
** Standard disclaimer about data may not be 100% suitable for calculating and various reasons the result may paint a false picture, though I think it's pretty close. The vaxxed tend to be older and feebler, yet vax still works miraculously.

[summit]

bodywhomper posted the article here
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...13#post6154213

I attempted to grok and apply it here
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...99#post6155799

Looking over it now, I remember being upset at the authors for not defining terms. For example, it looks like I decided prevalence means what fraction of people have infectious cases. Since people are typically infectious for 5 days (number out of my hat), that means the number of positive cases is multiplied by 5, and by the undercount caused because testing misses some cases. Taking this into account, the paper's prediction seemed reasonable (fits in my confirmation bias bubble). It's entirely possible the authors mean something else.

It's also non-obvious to me why their model should be correct, though I agree they fitted it on other more complex, accepted models. Delta may have a different infectious period, so does the model need to be re-fitted? idk. It just seems fishy that their power factor is exactly 0.5 and the constant multiplier is 1. Fishy doesn't mean wrong - maybe disease specific parameters drop out. I ran it for my county today using an (artificial) positivity of 1% and the result looks high - I would guess 1% means we're catching almost all the cases.

Anyway, use with care.

Thanks! I'll mess with it tomorrow.

[Tor-tour]

My frickin Uber driver tonight from SLC to Deer Valley (yeah, I know) wasn't wearing a mask and windows rolled up. Asked him to put one on, since I've got kids not vaccinated yet. Said he was vaccinated and if I didn't like it to get out. Asked him real questions, then shamed him.

This isn't going to end

But hopefully he won't be driving for Uber again

[splat]

barely worth pointing this out - but 99.7 would be fatal cancer not just cancer. The odds are much greater that you'll be infected w/ COVID, experience symptoms, maybe develop disease, maybe have longer term effects, infect others and yes...a smaller percentage will die.

Edit to add: if, instead of a treatment, there was a cancer vaccine that would prevent a .3% fatal cancer I'd take that in a hot minute. My generation missed out the HPV vax which would be a better analog here.

You didn't miss out on the HPV vaccine - insurance companies didn't want to make it available to everyone - you can get it and prevent penile and uterine cancer. Just have to pay for it because the insurance companies figured you were too close to death to matter.

[Jacques Strap]

Quoted for re-read:

I did some digging on rj a couple years back when I was dumb enough to engage him on the global warming thread. It seemed to me that the had been a legit poster for a while, disappeared for a long while and reappeared as a troll. My money is on the account having been hacked and is an agent of disinformation and planter of distrust. I vote ban hammer.
That said, don't engage, and for fucks sake don't quote the piece of shit.