Psaki: Even After Vaccine, You Still Need to Social Distance and Wear Masks

Nothing is ever "guaranteed". That's my point. You do everything you can to minimize your risk and then at some point you have to just go with it. This continual moving the goal posts needs to stop.

 

So you are happy to infect those that have not been vaccinated yet just so you don't have to wear a mask? That "some point" is when 70% of the population is vaccinated

 

Am I wrong in thinking you have an agenda? 3M respirators are available that allow you to easily filter the exhalation valve. Do you want to claim this is a "modification?"



Also, you can buy filters for the exhalation valve on the 3M 6502QL.



Filters on these masks are better than wearing a typical mask that allows air to get out around the edges.

 

After having the virus, I'm much less likely to do so- so YES!

 

So you are willing to play Russian Roulette with someone else's life just so you don't have to wear a mask? The probability of you being re-infected with the same strain that you say you had is 17% of the probability of anyone else being first time infected as proven in the link to the study I provided. And now there are at least 4 other strains that you will have even less resistance to

 

GTFOOH!! You play "Russian Roulette" every time you get behind the wheel of your car. Of course there are millions of chambers in the gun instead of 6. Stop with the drama. It's tedious.

Cute. 17% of being infected the first time. And what is the probability of being infected the first time?

And off you go with the goalposts again.

 

Not with other people's lives just because you don't want to wear a mask for a few minutes a day. Or do you wear the mask over your eyes when you drive? That could be where you're going wrong

 

Disingenuous post number 2. Bye.

 

He's not infecting anyone if he has the anti-bodies. That's ridiculous. Quit living in a state of artificially created fear.

 

Interesting. A pre-print (which is certainly acceptable to me) of a larger sample that excluded initial seroconversions that still only found 2 likely reinfections. That certainly validates the Oxford Hospital trial.

Well, yes you did. You said this, which only refers to non sterilizing immunity and completely denies sterilizing immunity observed in 80-90% of recovered natural infections and the likely higher than that percentage of sterilizing immunity from vaccines like the Phizer one.

As we’ve both demonstrated now, the vast majority of individuals with neutralizing antibodies DO prevent viruses living and replicating in the immune body.

You and @Bowerbird both have a fundamental misunderstanding of what immunity is and is not.

I was serious about your source claiming non infected individuals transmit viruses to others. Is it a study or an opinion piece of journalism? I would really like to see it.

There can be no excuses for providing misinformation. We must be honest about immunity or we will end up with people rejecting vaccination on the same grounds as masks—being lied to about them. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

I’ve been advocating for complete transparency on vaccines since the first week of August so rejection of vaccines can be avoided.

So far I think we’ve done a pretty good job rolling out vaccines. The one company giving the wrong dose in trials was odd, and I am disappointed companies like Phizer didn’t screen for asymptomatic infections in phase 3 trials. So at this point I don’t want to discourage vaccination by misrepresenting what we know about C19 immunity. This country is set up for adults to have access to information to make their own informed decisions. Our model of government was not intended to present misinformation to get people to conform. The people I deal with in my “world” still want honesty and full disclosure. Lying or presenting less than accurate information to influence their behavior will create distrust in vaccines period.


I’ll leave you with the words of a very smart man.

“the danger of minimization on/in any arena of infectious disease and outbreak is that you might get people to be complacent, number one, number two, when bad things happen your credibility is lost because you’ve downplayed something”

So you are correct that we must be honest about asymptomatic spread. That’s nothing new. And we must give reliable information on which strains have mutated enough to be unrecognizable to current neutralizing antibodies and cellular components of immunity. But we must not minimize the sterilizing immunity that does exist. If we do, people will forego vaccination just like they did with masks after misinformation was presented to them.

 

"44 reinfections (2 probable, 42 possible)" is not equivalent to "2 likely reinfections". and is equivalent to a sixth of the infection rate of first timers which should not be ignored (Russian roulette odds )

I stated that there is no evidence (yet) that the vaccine provides sterilization immunity, I did not state that sterilization immunity does not exist and acknowledged that it cans exist where I referenced polio and hpv, quote:-

"It's very dangerous to imply that sterilization immunity is possible for this disease when no evidence exists. It's not like polio or HPV which are not transmitted through droplets and do not replicate in the upper airways. "

We already have people here saying that they are not going to wear a mask because they became "immune" when they recovered from the virus

Where did I state that? Are you confusing this with the quotes I posted that came from your link?

complete transparency is not telling vaccinated people that they cannot contract Covid and cannot pass it on to others. There will be cases where a vaccinated person will still contract the virus - it even says so on the tin regarding effacacy

I do too

 

2 "probable" and 42 "possible != 44 reinfections. You seem to have a real problem with logic and statistics. And I can't stand the sneering, elitist, authoritarian attitude. It's people like you who reflect badly on the left.

 

When a study states that there are 44 reinfections then that is the figure that is quoted. They didn't just make up the 44 figure to piss people off. This disease is much more important than politics

 

They qualified the figure with probable and possible. I think your dishonesty is not accidental.

 

Great post, but you're providing facts and good information to people who simply don't want to believe you for emotional reasons, and because they prefer the bullshit that already believe for partisan reasons. And even I had to look up sequelae. Good word, that ... thanks.

My first vax dose is scheduled for Saturday afternoon. Even after the second dose, I'll still wear a mask in public places.

 

I provided their exact quote! Notice the quotation marks

 

Certainly you aren't that stupid. If 2 are probable and 42 possible it doesn't take a PhD in statistics to come the conclusion that the real total reinfections will be less than 44.

 

As the study has not yet been peer reviewed you can write to the authors of the study and tell them that they are stupid to state that they calculated that there were 44 reinfections, the number they used to determine a 0.17 ratio

 

Not them... They qualified their numbers. I assume they break down the confidence intervals for people in the "probable" and "possible" categories in the paper. Unfortunately they can't force their readers to draw valid conclusions.

 

Perhaps you should read the report instead of assuming. And once again, here is their conclusion

Perhaps you could explain what you think the 0.17 figure represents?

 

There you did it again!!

You pointed out that to meet the primary purpose of the mask one would need to cover the exit valve.

I'm confident that your mask proposal would do a better job of protecting the wearer, but the reason masks are effective in reducing our overall infection rate is that they stop the exhaled water droplets that carry the virus.

If you have a valve allowing exhaling without impediment, that purpose is not even slightly addressed.

 

The objective is to reach a point where there is little enough infection to allow opening our economy more fully.

YOUR direction does NOT help accomplish that.

And, you are even willing to STATE that you're fine with infecting other people.

Surely that identifies you as a sociopath. You care so little for oter people's lives that you won't just wear a mask when/where it is important to do so.

I really find that disgusting.

 

.17 is the odds ratio NOT a percentage of re-infections.

 

Odds ratio of what?

 

What's disgusting is your reading comprehension. I'm fine not wearing as mask precisely because I'm VERY unlikely to infect another person. Read slower.