New Study Suggests Wearing Masks Could be Way to Herd Immunity

[Reynolds]

No im not

Actually, you are right. Its well over 99% with the bogus numbers removed.

 

[Reynolds]

Rev - you are way off!! in our county - recovery is only 96%

You are counting the people who had covid when they died in a car wreck or of cancer, or of heart disease.

 

[Reynolds]

"To determine the infection fatality rate in Arizona, we divided the percentage of the state’s population who had died from Covid-19 as of July 30, 2020, by the 12.9% of the population that was infected based on antibody testing between July 20 and July 26, 2020. Antibody testing captures the total percentage of the population that had been infected with Covid-19 from the beginning of the outbreak. We then calculated and applied a standard correction factor for the delay between case diagnosis and death. This yielded an infection fatality rate of 0.63%, which is not significantly different from the CDC’s best estimate of 0.65% for the U.S. in the Spring of 2020."

from Is Covid-19 growing less lethal? The infection fatality rate says 'no' - STAT

You are still counting deaths that were not from COVID. They were with COVID. You are also assuming you know who really has had it. My doctor told me that he gas seen many asymptomatic people who antibody test said they did not develop antibodies. Either Covid yest was wrong or....

 

[atpollard]

You are still counting deaths that were not from COVID. They were with COVID. You are also assuming you know who really has had it. My doctor told me that he gas seen many asymptomatic people who antibody test said they did not develop antibodies. Either Covid yest was wrong or....

Perhaps, but you can't see the Tree for the Forest ... an infection fatality rate of 0.63% to 0.65% is LESS THAN 1%, so the recovery rate must be greater than 99% (which is what Revmitchell claimed).

 

[Reynolds]

Perhaps, but you can't see the Tree for the Forest ... an infection fatality rate of 0.63% to 0.65% is LESS THAN 1%, so the recovery rate must be greater than 99% (which is what Revmitchell claimed).

I 100% agree. I have never suggested anything different. I think .63% is high. I think its about .33%.

 

[Calminian]

A new study theorizes that wearing of masks can reduce the severity of COVID infections and therefore create low level asymptomatic infections in individuals which will lead to herd immunity.

Briefly:
Universal masking reduces the “inoculum” or dose of the virus for the mask-wearer, leading to more mild and asymptomatic infection manifestations. Masks, depending on type, filter out the majority of viral particles, but not all. Asymptomatic infections may be harmful for spread but could actually be beneficial if they lead to higher rates of exposure. Exposing society to SARS-CoV-2 without the unacceptable consequences of severe illness with public masking could lead to greater community-level immunity and slower spread as we await a vaccine. Our theory is based on the likelihood of masking reducing the viral inoculum to which the mask-wearer is exposed, leading to higher rates of mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.

Masks Do More than Protect Others during COVID-19

If true, then, by all means, our at-risk citizens should wear masks. Those with no mortality risk (much lower than the flu and other infectious diseases), should be free to ditch them.

 

[atpollard]

Those with no mortality risk (much lower than the flu and other infectious diseases), should be free to ditch them.

The numbers do not support a claim of "much lower than the flu". A bad Flu season might have 10 death per 100,000 infections and the latest data on COVID places it at 65 deaths per 100,000 infections. Even if HALF of those people ultimately died of Covid and something else, 30/100,000 places the death rate far above even a bad flu season and very far above the 1 death per 100,000 infections of a typical flu season.

 

[InTheLight]

If true, then, by all means, our at-risk citizens should wear masks. Those with no mortality risk (much lower than the flu and other infectious diseases), should be free to ditch them.

"Ditching" the mask by low-risk citizens (or all citizens) would lead to people with more serious infections than asymptomatic. Rather than blithely going about their business wearing a mask and being infected but not knowing it, getting infected while not wearing a mask leads to a more serious, overt infection with symptoms. This means isolation and self-quarantine for 14 days. The shutdown would continue for these people. Whereas, simply wearing a mask could keep these people asymptomatic, and productive.

This study seems to show that universal mask wearing would get us back to full productive lives sooner than not wearing masks.

 

[Calminian]

"Ditching" the mask by low-risk citizens (or all citizens) would lead to people with more serious infections than asymptomatic. ....

Yes, but so what? They don't show symptoms and don't get hospitalized and they increase herd immunity. And without a lockdown, all the other problems go away.

Now keep in mind, media is pushing this because they think Trump's going to get a boost from the vaccine. So they're saying masks are the new vaccine and don't trust the vaccine.

If what you're saying is true (and my hunch is it isn't, but if it is) then the solution is right in front of you. Mask up those who are vulnerable so they don't get a lethal dose of the virus. Those not vulnerable, or who have already developed the antibodies are free to resume business and free to worship in churches with minimal risk.

 

[Calminian]

Actually, you are right. Its well over 99% with the bogus numbers removed.

And if you take the at-risk folks out and protect them specifically, it's astronomically low. The flu is more dangerous to kids.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, but so what? They don't show symptoms and don't get hospitalized and they increase herd immunity. And without a lockdown, all the other problems go away.

Now keep in mind, media is pushing this because they think Trump's going to get a boost from the vaccine. So they're saying masks are the new vaccine and don't trust the vaccine.

If what you're saying is true (and my hunch is it isn't, but if it is) then the solution is right in front of you. Mask up those who are vulnerable so they don't get a lethal dose of the virus. Those not vulnerable, or who have already developed the antibodies are free to resume business and free to worship in churches.

Let's see...

Wear a mask, get COVID, don't show any symptoms, continue as normal.
Don't wear a mask, get COVID, get symptoms, self-quarantine for 14 days.

I wonder which strategy prolongs the economic pain?

 

[Reynolds]

Let's see...

Wear a mask, get COVID, don't show any symptoms, continue as normal.
Don't wear a mask, get COVID, get symptoms, self-quarantine for 14 days.

I wonder which strategy prolongs the economic pain?

Who runs and gets Covid tested every time they get a sniffle? Democrats!

 

[Calminian]

Let's see...

Wear a mask, get COVID, don't show any symptoms, continue as normal.
Don't wear a mask, get COVID, get symptoms, self-quarantine for 14 days.

I wonder which strategy prolongs the economic pain?

You're confused about your own theory, but I'm looking at the claims of the article. I do understand the argument the article made. They believe it'll have a vaccine-effect without the vaccine. If they're right, masking the entire population is no longer necessary. If they want to achieve herd immunity, just mask those at risk. Let those not a risk get exposed naturally.

I feel the same way about the vaccine, BTW. Those vulnerable are the main priority. We don't need to vaccinate healthy children and adults, now that we know specifically who the risk groups are.

 

[InTheLight]

Who runs and gets Covid tested every time they get a sniffle? Democrats!

You are seriously going to politicize an individuals choice to go to the doctor and get tested for Covid?

Also am wondering how you would know that Democrats get tested when they get the sniffles...

 

[Reynolds]

You are seriously going to politicize an individuals choice to go to the doctor and get tested for Covid?

Also am wondering how you would know that Democrats get tested when they get the sniffles...

Because I watched the Democrats around here line up at the Covid testing site. Most The Republicans laughed at them. It was running entertainment for several weeks sitting in hardware store and laughing at dems line up to get tested. We all sitting around chewing the fat with no masks and Dems only come out from under their rock to get tested. White Dems that is. Black Dems were life as normal just like us.

 

[InTheLight]

You're confused about your own theory,

It's not my theory, it's the scientists theory.

but I'm looking at the claims of the article. I do understand the argument the article made.

No you don't.

They believe it'll have a vaccine-effect without the vaccine.

No, they don't. They say it could act as a "poor man's vaccine" while we await a real vaccine.

If they're right, masking the entire population is no longer necessary. If they want to achieve herd immunity, just mask those at risk. Let those not a risk get exposed naturally.

Sure, and if they get COVID without wearing a mask, they could get a full-blown infection, show symptoms and be quarantined for 14 days. If they get COVID while wearing a mask, they might not get a full-blown infection, just a mild one, not show symptoms and continue on with their life without the need to quarantine.

 

[InTheLight]

Because I watched the Democrats around here line up at the Covid testing site. Most The Republicans laughed at them. It was running entertainment for several weeks sitting in hardware store and laughing at dems line up to get tested.

Republicans laughing at science.

How odd.

 

[Calminian]

It's not my theory, it's the scientists theory.

I'm addressing the scientists theory. Yours is confused.

No, they don't. They say it could act as a "poor man's vaccine" while we await a real vaccine.

Many democrats including Harris, are saying they don't trust the vaccine.

And yes, the scientists is essentially saying it's a poor man's vaccine.

Sure, and if they get COVID without wearing a mask, they could get a full-blown infection, show symptoms and be quarantined for 14 days. If they get COVID while wearing a mask, they might not get a full-blown infection, just a mild one, not show symptoms and continue on with their life without the need to quarantine.

Which is why I think it should be for those at-risk of getting the full-blown infection. We know who these people are. The sickness is very mild for the rest. Kids are not developing full blown symptoms.

I really don't know why you're fighting this. It should be good news to you.

 

[Reynolds]

Republicans laughing at science.

How odd.

Nope. Laughing at stupid people who think they understand science.
The Louvre has miles of Science books that have been proven false. In their day, you were considered an idiot if you disagreed with them.

 

[Reynolds]

I'm addressing the scientists theory. Yours is confused.



Many democrats including Harris, are saying they don't trust the vaccine.

And yes, the scientists is essentially saying it's a poor man's vaccine.



Which is why I think it should be for those at-risk of getting the full-blown infection. We know who these people are. The sickness is very mild for the rest. Kids are not developing full blown symptoms.

I really don't know why you're fighting this. It should be good news to you.

Covid not being catastrophic does not fit his narrative he has so consistently held and cant cant bear to abandon and admit error.