We broke all records of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations today

@557

Well, indeed, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. LaTulippe's license, out of concern for his current and future patients. Well done!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-trump-doctor-bragged-not-152212652.html

 

The CDC is recommending masks be used in homes where comorbidity is a factor. I suggest you do your own research on what percentage of households have an occupant with an underlying comorbidity. Around 45% of individuals have diagnosed underlying conditions not including obesity. Include obesity and the majority of households fit the current CDC recommendation. Remember last time we had this conversation they only recommended masks in home for multigenerational households and I told you eventually the CDC would have to admit the realities I pointed out at the time.

I’ve not come around because that’s always been my position.

I will never be a science denier so will never deny that certain levels of natural herd immunity do exist today. I’ve also never advocated for pursuing natural herd immunity. I’ve posted quite a bit more factual information on the subject quite recently. Just as always, it’s verifiable and nobody can post evidence to the contrary.

I would not recommend mask usage in households where everyone has recovered from Covid. I would not recommend usage in households that have been fully quarantined for 3 weeks. Or to households who do not care about infecting a family member. We’ve already established you are the latter.

For others, mask usage at home is still best practice based on the evidence. Recent studies show an infected index case in a household will infect about 50% of household members with 1/3 of that transmission happening pre and asymptomatically. Other studies show when community mitigations are in place, up to 70% of totals infections are occurring in the home. During a lockdown almost all infections occur at home, and remember Cuomo’s surprise when last spring people will still showing up to hospitals and dying in droves who were infected at home during lockdown? The science could not be more clear. If people are serious about reducing infections with masks, mask usage in the home is the best way at the moment. I know it’s an inconvenient truth, but it’s a fact.

I’d like to point out following the guidelines as written is responsible for the difference between our pandemic experience and that of South Korea. Unfortunately following guidelines is not working. That’s why the CDC is reluctantly admitting what I’ve known for months. If you want to stop (or slow) this without a vaccine you have to control transmission in the home.

Again, following guidelines as written is almost solely responsible for the disaster in the US. This may help you understand why not thinking for oneself is dangerous.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072216002/

Links to information contained in this post.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20043919v1
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6944e1.htm?s_cid=mm6944e1_w
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/adult-obesity-rates-rise-6-states-exceed-35-7
https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794

I know you don’t want to wear a mask. But do it for your family.

 

Wow, thanks for the follow up.

 

Pointing out when masks fail is not opposition to masks. I want people to THINK. My posts are to provide information and to prompt critical thought.

 

Very encouraging. Thanks for posting.

 

Impressive terminology... "comorbidity". I'll have to keep that one in mind. But, other than a fancy word, is there any difference in substance, between that and what I said?

What is a "level of herd immunity"? Sounds fancy... But, then again, there is so much pseudoscientific terminology that sound fancy to me. And then you ask them to define. And that's when you realize that they don't mean anything.

Good to hear.

I don't know if I understand what you're saying. But I would most definitely recommend mask wearing to household who do not care about infecting a family member. Wait! Come to think of it, first I would recommend that they START caring. And tell them why. Mask wearing would logically follow. So there might not be a need to recommend it. If they don't care about their own family, more than masks, I would recommend professional counseling.

I'll repeat this for the n-teenth time: best practice or not, it's absurd to recommend it (other than under the limited scope that the CDC has already outlined). Because it's unrealistic. It's not going to happen! If you are going to recommend things (which is what the CDC does), make sure they are realistic. Otherwise, people won't take you seriously.

They sure are. I follow them. Everybody in my family does. And they work! My niece who did not follow them when her boyfriend took her out to a concert is the only person in my family who got infected. About 2 weeks ago. But she did follow them for a long time. Long enough for doctors to come up with better treatments. So the idea is to stay healthy for as long as you can, to give science time. And that has most definitely worked.

Well... there goes your "love" for science... Out the window!

I will keep this quote for future reference: "Following [CDC] guidelines as written is almost solely responsible for the disaster in the US". Priceless! The implication seems to be that if we didn't follow CDC guidelines, there wouldn't be such a disaster (or that it would be less of a disaster). One would have to wonder why there being so many people (including our idiot President and his lunatic attorney) who have NOT followed CDC guidelines and they still got sick. Maybe it's anecdotal, but I am under the impression that it's more people who don't follow the CDC guidelines who get sick than those who do.

As for your links, if you have a point to make, you make it. That's what forum rules say...

 

Golem, maybe I shouldn't get in the middle of this, but for what is worth, out of my many discussions with 557, he does know what he is saying when he mentions technical terms like comorbidities and herd immunity. He is one of the few posters here who actually understand what herd immunity is, how it's calculated, and what factors in a heterogeneous populations are in play to increase or decrease the herd immunity threashold. 557 has a very good understanding of science.

As for household use, I've always thought that although important, it's an uphill battle because like you said, people won't follow the recommendation. Me and my wife, after not following it for months, actually now we are, given that the pandemic is so out of control right now and raging in our county of residence. So, we're trying to make sure that if one of us catches it, the other one doesn't, while we wait for the vaccine.

Regarding CDC recommendations, maybe 557 is talking about how they took a long time to acknowledge that masks do protect the wearer as well. At one point they had recommended masks only for healthcare workers and for people caring at home for a Covid-19 patient, and indeed, I can't agree with that, and I do think that this wrong CDC recommendation had an impact in discouraging mask use. A blunder, if you ask me.

But yes, even more than the CDC and its conflicting and at times non-scientific advice, I blame the people who deny this virus' danger and make a point of not following any containment measure, including politicians from both parties, and including regular Americans too.

 

So you advise people to use something that you think is detrimental to the health of the general population. I'm definitely thinking something but not what you think I am thinking . Each to their own I suppose

 

From what I've read... I have yet to be convinced of that.

I don't think that's what he means. Not at this point in the debate. Because it would be pure demagoguery. If that's what he meant, it would be worse than I thought. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's not that.

The recommendation to not wear masks was the correct one when it was issued. And the switch to recommend masks was the right one when that was issued. Circumstances simply changed. Otherwise the shortage of N-95 mask would have been immediate, and many more people (especially medical workers) would have died. Not only was it unclear whether or not masks would help the general population, or make matters worse. But it also gave time for manufacturers, stores and consumers to understand why those masks should not be used by the general population.

I don't know what non-scientific advice you are referring to. I remember some wishy-washy advice given to some businesses. Especially meat processing plans, if I remember correctly. I assume that's what you mean. But that wasn't from CDC experts. They were watered down by political appointees. Most likely under pressure from the WH.

 

Well, we believe in the concept of "Give me liberty, or give me death..." At least we used to, I am very much doubting that we still do based on what I've seen in 2020. It seems to be an outdated principal that way too many people never understood, and do not care about in the least.

 

Yes, quite a difference. You think they CDC recommendation is for small groups. It actually applies to the majority of households in the US. Probably an overwhelming majority but there are no statistics on how many individuals with diagnosed medical condition comorbidity also have extra risk from age or obesity.

You’ve always had a fundamental misunderstanding of what herd immunity is. It’s a function of the R-naught of the disease. The R-naught is a variable quantity dependent on (but not limited to) pathogenicity, possible cross reactivity of immunity with other pathogens, human behaviors, and of course the percentage of the population immune from natural infection or vaccination. Because of this, herd immunity is not a static number. Where herd immunity exists today it may not tomorrow due to a mutation affecting pathogenicity but not immunity, drastic changes in human behavior, or even seasonal changes in coinfection rates.

So when I say “level of herd immunity” I’m referring to a population being in a condition around an R-naught of 1 or approaching 1. A population in a state where they are very near the herd immunity threshold either having a current R-naught of slightly above or below 1. If you have a better term I’m open to suggestions.

Furthermore, herd immunity by definition occurs in populations. I’ve always been clear when discussing herd immunity I’m only referring to a specific population. A population could be three family members in the Alaska woods. Or a section of a city. Or an entire state. Or a continent.

Let me clear up your confusion. You definitely don’t understand. People who care about not infecting family members will wear a mask at home. Those who don’t care about infecting family members will not. It’s that simple.

But the CDC is not recommending a limited scope. I clearly demonstrated the majority of US households are included in their recommendation.

And there is nothing unrealistic about it. We’ve been assured masks do not affect you in any negative way. We’ve been assured masks are now in good supply. They do not cause CO2 poisoning, low blood oxygen, or pneumonia to the best of our knowledge. Many also believe the positive effects of mask usage outweigh the negative community transmission effects. The same would apply in the home. After all, the study I showed you in August as empirical evidence, the CDC is now using to base their recommendation on. Your desire to not wear a mask is irrelevant to the fact all could benefit from doing so. There is no excuse to not do so.

I’m glad it’s worked for you. Others have not been so lucky. Transmission is occurring at great rates in the home even in households that wear masks in public. I guess you are like a lot of others here. You think your anecdotal circumstance is applicable to society as a whole. I’ve worn a mask a handful of times in the last year and my family has not been infected either. But I’m smart enough to know my circumstances aren’t indicative of everyone else’s. You are like people who deny Covid exists because they don’t have it.

Quite the contrary. My love of science is what allows me to see the errors that have been made. Most believe the secondary lies told to cover the initial lies because they are ignorant of the biological facts misrepresented in those cover up lies.

Please read the post of mine I linked to. It will clearly show following early guidelines is responsible in large part for our failure. You are known to post links to your previous content on PF so I’m sure you don’t mind my doing so. If not for the early guidelines we could have been like South Korea.

I have made my arguments. The links were not for you, even though they are the verification references for my post to you. They are a demonstration for a new member @Tigger2. Thanks for being predictable as always, the demonstration was textbook perfect.

 

I want people to think seriously about what a mask can do for them if they use it properly. And only wearing a mask in public is part of not using it properly. Especially with schools in session. I want people who aren’t using a mask correctly to think about the consequences of that. As I have said multiple times I want individuals to make up their own minds using complete information. Because I discuss lack of social distancing in masked folks doesn’t mean I am anti mask. It means I want people to do both if protecting themselves and others is their desire. I really care little about what you think of me. If I cared what people thought of me I would pick a “side” on Covid here and be tribal like most others instead of posting facts that upset both “sides” at times. If you are thinking at all about the facts I present that’s good. I don’t post on Covid for any reason except I see a need for non main stream information and I feel I can help people broaden their knowledge base to make better personal choices.

 

Fail! Applies to small and, most especially, to large groups. You don't mention what recommendation you are talking about so... impossible to respond. I'm sure that was not by design, right?

I know what herd immunity is. I also know that this is pure BS.

Yeah! I have a better term: bull crap. You did not answer the question. You just went with you pseudoscientific nonsense. The only relevant word in all the nonsense you wrote is "threshold". So if there is a "threshold" there are no levels except two: either the threshold is reached and there is herd immunity, or it hasn't been reached and we haven't. Period! All this "R-naught" nonsense is bull crap plain and simple! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question I asked. And absolutely unnecessary if you had an answer to my question! Which was what the hell are "levels of immunity"

You obviously don't have an answer! So that's that.

Oh my God! What the HELL does that have to do with "levels of immunity"?

Hint to anybody who believes your B.S.: nothing!

No! It's not simple. It's artificially simplistic! It's like saying: "if you care about not infecting your family you would hide in a closet until there is a vaccine"

Both your and my statement are technically true, but both are equally unrealistic. People will not... I repeat... will not follow it. Anybody recommending it will be (justifiably) looked as if they are nuts. And, from that moment on, the person who said that will be regarded by the people he/she tried to convince of it as not being serious and of little worth listening to.

No! Recommendations are common sense practices that make sense and that would be adopted by normal people in normal households.

I'll let you be the owner of the B.S., and I'll take the banner of simple easy to understand no nonsense reality.

It would be absurd for the CDC to recommend everybody to wear a mask at home. Because it would help very little (it would require everybody to do it at all times... which is not going to happen). Very few people would actually do it. And the CDC would be the butt of the joke.

If you have anything rational to say, go for it. If not, spare us the pseudoscientific diatribe. And remember, throwing in scientific-sounding terms in a debate just because ... they sound scientific, does not help your case at all.

“If you can’t say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can.”
— Karl Popper
​

 

CenterField, maybe I shouldn't insist on this, but don't be fooled by 557's flashy sounding diatribe. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He throws in words that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Talking about herd immunity, he throws in terms like "levels of immunity". Which is nonsense. There is no such thing as "levels of immunity" in reference to herd immunity. There is a hypothetical threshold beyond which there is herd immunity, and before which there is no herd immunity. Period! No "levels"

So when I ask him to explain, he throws in "scientific-sounding" terms like "R-naught". Which is used in reference to how contagious a virus is, how many people one person might infect, how it reproduces, etc.... But nothing that has anything to do with "levels of herd immunity".

If I were talking about how contagious a virus is, I would say "this virus is very contagious", or "one person could infect X number of people in Y amount of time". Simple every day language. If you were to see me talking about "R-naught" you should immediately conclude that I am trying to hide ignorance in scientific-sounding terminology that is nothing but mumbo-jumbo.

I always use a rule of thumb when deciding who has the upper hand in a discussion: whoever tries to simplify, is usually right. The one who tries to complicate, is usually wrong. The latter is what 557 does. Try to complicate things that are actually very very simple.

 

Patrick Henry was not talking about mask wearing, was he? No. Of course not. Just to be clear... He was saying that he would rather die with liberty, than live with British tyranny.

 

The recommendation we are discussing is mask usage in the home. That’s it. Here is the recommendation...again.

:

If you think the R-naught has nothing to do with the herd immunity threshold you have no idea what herd immunity is.

The herd immunity threshold is a function of the R-naught. Cold, hard fact. The herd immunity threshold (HIT) is not static. Fact. The R-naught of any disease is in constant flux. Fact. Look it up. So far you have not presented any evidence I’m incorrect. As usual.
Do your own research Golem.

If you have a better term for approaching herd immunity or moving in and out of herd immunity let’s hear it. Go...

You not having the background in virology, epidemiology, and biology to understand my answer is irrelevant to the fact I provided a detailed answer.

It’s quite clear. Different populations are nearer herd immunity than others. In the past I’ve made strong cases based on empirical evidence certain populations have achieved or are nearing the HIT. I brought up populations because you earlier said I’d made "herd immunity by mass infection" claims. I want it to be clear all my claims were in context of very specific populations and that I have never advocated for natural herd immunity.

You can call it BS all you want. But you better provide some evidence it’s BS.

“Normal” households include the aged, the obese, those with heart conditions, diabetes, cancer, history of stroke, and other Covid comorbidities. I’m sorry you would never consider protecting your family. I think that’s truly sad. But I won’t stop dissemination of accurate information because you can’t be bothered to protect those you love. I could care less what you think is practical. People deserve the truth independent of your opinions.

You are now on record as calling the CDC “nuts” and inferring they are not worth listening to. Because they are the ones recommending “normal” people mask at home. Or are you saying people with heart conditions aren’t normal? Or people over a certain age aren’t normal? Or people with diabetes aren’t normal? Or are you saying obese people aren’t normal? LOL

I’ll own it now just like I did in August. Facts are facts and I won’t stop posting facts because of your emotional outbursts.

I said it simply and clearly. Again. Those who care about infecting family members will wear a mask at home.

Everything I’ve posted is rational. It’s all factual. You can claim posting facts is irrational but I doubt anyone will take that argument seriously. I’m not interested in your opinions, Golem. Do some actual research on the subject. You will find my information is accurate.

And I don’t use “science sounding terms”. I use correct terminology broadly accepted by the scientific community at large. Except for when a term for the concept does not yet exist. Then I’m open to suggestions for a better term.

 

Oh no. The CDC advice was wrong and non-scientific. I've posted here (multiple times) a meta-analysis with 29 studies, ALL with coronaviruses (SARS-1, MERS, and SARS-CoV-2) with an aRR (adjusted relative risk) of 0.18 favoring mask use, that is, decreasing the risk of catching the infection FOR THE WEARER by 82%. The absolute risk dropped from 1 in 5.7 to 1 in 32. That is what scientific studies show: that masks DO protect the wearer (duh!). The CDC indicated that masks protect the community but not the wearer. That was a MISTAKE. Selfish like human being are, people simply thought that wearing masks wasn't worth the inconvenience, if they thought that it could protect the others but not themselves.

I do understand WHY they did it: to protect healthcare workers like me, so that we'd have the masks. Well, that didn't work, because the N95 masks were scarce NOT because the population ran to buy them (most people didn't even know what they were), but because China gobbled up their production and took 3 weeks cancelling export contracts BEFORE they announced the outbreak to the WHO.

The reason for the shortage wasn't a run to masks. It was the fact that we stupidly gave away our means of production of this important national security item, to unfriendly countries, in search of cheap labor, and also had a very depleted strategic stockpile.

The way to act on this would be to energetically buy more in the international market elsewhere than China (e.g., Peru makes nice ones - we are a rich country - we can outbid others) and increase domestic production through the Defense Production Act. 3M was allowed to export N95s made in America to Canada and South America by the hundreds of thousands, in the freaking middle of the pandemic, while we fumbled around on the issue of masks. It took forever to threaten them with the Defense Product Act to get them to change behavior. Jumping on this from the very beginning would have been much more efficient to get these masks to healthcare workers, than issuing lying advice to the American people.

The advice issued by the CDC was QUITE ridiculous. It mentioned that masks were NOT needed for the population except for healthcare workers and people taking care of a relative at home with Covid-19, on grounds that they weren't protective for the wearer. That was a LIE, and the contradiction was absurd. So masks protected the wearer when caring for someone with Covid-10... (if they don't protect the wearer, why in the hell people doing that, would need them???) but suddenly stop protecting the wearer in situations that are less dangerous? It's like saying that breaks in a car cannot stop the car if the car is going 5 miles per hour, but are perfectly capable of stopping the car if it is going 90 miles per hour. Yeah, right.

What happened is that the CDC knew PERFECTLY WELL that masks protect the wearer but chose to LIE, but at least they didn't have the guts to let people care for Covid-19 positive relatives at home without a mask. So the lie had good intentions, that of preserving the masks for healthcare workers, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So, when you lie and issue wishy-washy advice, what happens is that you LOSE CREDIBILITY. Much better would have been to never mention the antiscientific LIE that masks don't protect the wearer, but rather, ask the population IMMEDIATELY to wear facemasks and cloth masks at least, and allow the N95s to be worn by healthcare workers. It wouldn't have worked that well, in terms of preserving the N95s, but it would have kept the CDC as a trusted and reliable source of sound recommendations. Credibility in the middle of a freaking pandemic is a very important asset.

Then, there was another fumble, the aerosol issue. They took forever to acknowledge that there is aerosol transmission.

Even worse fumble, the attempt to curtail testing, in a time when they bowed to pressure from the White House and Scott Atlas's (that moron) stupid advice in favor of natural herd immunity, the most boneheaded idea ever. The CDC should have said "we'll resign before bowing to political pressure and issuing detrimental advice to the population and release detrimental guidelines to the healthcare system."

The rolling out of test kits with large number of false positives and false negatives was another problem, and both the FDA and the CDC have part of the blame.

Also, there was NO CDC-sponsored educational campaign whatsoever. Why wasn't the CDC pushing for a campaign to teach the population HOW to use masks and what kinds are more efficacious??? I speak five languages and regularly watch international TV and I see such campaigns by the foreign equivalents of the CDC. Every commercial break in prime time, during the most watched shows and sports and news, we should have had a brief message by the CDC, issuing clear guidelines, instruction, advice, and educational pieces. I mean, we are a country that doesn't wear mask, or when we do, we wear them below the nose, under the chin, we remove them to talk to people so that they'll understand us, we wear useless neck gaiters... Where is the CDC to teach the population about proper mask use???

A high number of KN95 masks sold in America are counterfeit or don't pass the standards (which, in the equivalence EUA by the FDA, should be similar to the CDC-NIOSH standards for N95s). So, there are KN95s that don't even have the inner layer made of blown melt. It is estimated that 70% of the KN95s sold in America don't meet standards. There are counterfeit N95s, too. There are ways to recognize the fakes. The CDC has a page teaching people to recognize the fakes, with photos and explanations of the characteristics of the real ones and the fake ones. Well, I know how to locate this page... but how many lay people know it? Again, the CDC put this information there but did NOTHING to divulge to the public that this was an important issue, inviting people to check, before they spent their hard earned money on substandard or counterfeit masks.

The bottom line is, the CDC was MISSING IN ACTION!!! They were timid, tentative, controversial, ambivalent, didn't do enough (in multiple ways), and lost credibility by issuing deliberately false advice. This is the WORST public health crisis in our nation in more than one century!!! Our MAIN agency in charge of managing these things, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did very little to control and prevent, and instead of educating the population, issued misinformation. I can't forgive them for that.

I use to admire the CDC a lot more than I do, now. I'm sure that part of the problem is the Trump administration. After all, the head of the CDC was nominated by Trump. We need to restore credibility and independence of the CDC.

 

That's what I said. I bolded the part that you seem to have omitted. At least from your arguments.

I said it has nothing to do with "levels of herd immunity". Which was what I asked you to define.

The fact that after three attempts, you have not answered. And instead throw in unrelated "scientific sounding" pompous terms that are irrelevant to the question being asked... And, more than anything, the fact that you try to change my question, proves my point.

Pseudoscience works by making unsubstantiated claims. And then making them look as if they were science by throwing in terms that "sound" scientific (thereby the prefix "pseudo"), but are neither necessary... and usually irrelevant to the claim.

My question was not about the threshold. In fact, if there were "levels" there wouldn't even be "a threshold" (or there would be several thresholds). So the threshold is irrelevant to my question. But if I were explaining the threshold to anybody (with or without a background on the subject), I would have done a much better job just by omitting the pompous and arrogant terminology.

 

Sorry, Golem. While I agree ideologically with you in many matters and find you to be an excellent poster, I do know 557 well so I disagree with you on his scientific knowledge, because he has proven his knowledge to me. We've exchanged lots of private messages, discussing the scientific aspects of this. We read together scientific papers and went over details of them, with back-and-forth commentary. I can certify that 557 does know what he is saying. He actually caught me in error a few times, and I do this for a living.

I agree with you that those who do possess the scientific knowledge, should try to present the information to lay people, in a way that it can be understood. I do attempt to do this. You may have noticed that in many discussions, I introduce analogies to make it simple and accessible.

But people have different styles. Actually I had this precise discussion with 557, when he accused me (appropriately) of simplifying too much certain concepts, while trying to explain them posters here who are not members of the medico-scientific community. I said to him, sometimes I think I'm being too technical. Like my State of the Vaccines thread: it isn't very popular. I post 90% of the posts there. I think people who click on it get intimidated and bored because the very first post, I go on and on about technical aspects of the vaccines, which not many really want to know about. So I changed my approach there to a more accessible reporting.

Anyway, look at the R naught issue. It is ABSOLUTELY linked to Herd Immunity. Actually, the formula that is used to calculate the Herd Immunity Threshold for a population, includes R naught as the most essential item in the formula. The HIT depends on the R naught. The calculation, again, in simplified terms (because it is a bit more complicated than that, also incorporating the s value or susceptibility) the Herd Immunity Threshold is 1 minus 1 over the R naught times 100 (to express it in percentage). So, for an R naught of 2 (meaning that each infected person passes the infection on to two other people) the HIT is 1 minus 1/2, so, 0.5, which times 100 means that 50% of the population needs to catch the natural infection or get vaccinated with a highly efficacious vaccine, in order for the population to achieve herd immunity. If R naught is 5, then it's 80%.

R naught can be written in formulas as R0.

Now, what he's been talking about, the level of immunity, does have to do with the calculation, in the s part. R is the number of people who get infected by one infected person, IN THE PRESENCE OF A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION THAT IS IMMUNE. s is the proportion of the population that is susceptible. So R = sR0.

To achieve herd immunity we need to get the proportion of the population that is susceptible, to be under 1/R0. That is, s < 1/R0.

The proportion of people who are NOT susceptible, in other words immune, is 1 minus s. To get to the HIT, then, we need: 1 - s > 1 - 1/R0. This is the complete formula. I hope I explained it in simple enough terms.

So, why is the level of immunity important? Because the population is heterogeneous. So, the sR0 doesn't function the same way for all sorts of populations. The sR0 is not a number written in stone like a fixed characteristic of a virus. It varies with the natural immunity the population presents.

For example, certain blood types are less susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2. People with higher vitamin D levels are less susceptible. It is speculated that those who were vaccinated with the BCG for tuberculosis are less susceptible. Also, those who have encountered other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold, multiple times, may have some cross-immunity against the SARS-CoV-2. People who have a lower level of ACE2 enzymes may be a less fertile person for the virus to invade his/her cells as it needs that enzyme. People of color may be more susceptible.

That's what 557 was getting at. So certain segments of the population may require a smaller percentage of them getting the natural infection or vaccines, in order to reach the HIT, because they already have a smaller susceptible fraction.

Then, there are factors that affect the R0 number itself: humidity of the air, outside temperature, index of sunlight with UVAs, ventilation, and most importantly, POPULATION DENSITY and sanitation. There was a population in a slum in a third world country, whose R0 for the SARS-CoV-2 was calculated as a whooping 16. The denser the population, the easier for the virus to jump from one person to the next, which is why the large metropolises in the world were particularly hard-hit.

Anyway, I hope the above helps.

 

No, I omitted nothing. In fact I linked directly to the CDC web pages that have the full text of the recommendation along with evidence they base their recommendation on so there would be no misunderstanding. Did you think I was recommending mask usage only if you go to the attic alone for Christmas decorations? Of course my argument is to wear masks in shared spaces around others!

I’ve explained twice now what I mean by the term. I’ve explained there is no formal accepted term to define the concept that I’m aware of. I’ve asked you for a better recommendation. You have not done so. I use correct terminology. I’m sorry that bothers you, but I see no reason to use incorrect terminology to soothe your feelings.

I’ve substantiated all claims.

We do not know what the HIT is for C19 in any population with any degree of certainty. The HIT is not static like a “threshold“ in your house. It’s unfortunate the media has misrepresented herd immunity to the point people like you believe it is. You say it’s simple. It’s not. You don’t like the term I use to discuss that uncertainty. Fine. But everything I’ve posted on herd immunity, R-naught, and mask usage in the home is verifiably factual.

Now, we are all disappointed you did not address calling the CDC nuts or the insinuation people who are overweight or have had cancer are not “normal”. Clearly you are out of your depth on epidemiology, why don’t you take a crack at explaining what constitutes a “normal” person. LOL

 

That states if you are in close contact (within 6 feet) of other people who don’t live in your household then wear a mask if you are going home to someone with comorbidities. It does not say to wear a mask all the time within your house. Did you not say that you were self quarantining?

 

In the other thread you kept going on about studies that you said should focus on how people act when wearing masks not on how physically effective a mask is. From that you stated that you think the negative aspects of wearing a mask outweigh the positives aspects of wearing a mask = you are an anti-masker.You gave support to the OP which stated "Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates" even though the thread title was a fake headline and not once did you address that. Anyone who reads and agrees with your posts would THINK don't wear a mask. You even had Ddyad and Eleuthera liking many of your posts - that should tell you all you should know

 

Should they just wear it to the can when they get home and then remove it to give their cancer survivor wife a kiss? The recommendation clearly states the household should wear masks if there are members who have had possibility of exposure and members with comorbidities. In shared spaces.

Even a few bling squirrel media outlets caught this one.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/cdc-guidance-mask-wearing-outside-home/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...avirus-guidelines-masks-distancing/index.html

Of course media never gets it completely correct. They fail to mention comorbidity. But at least the got the “potential exposure” correct.

Yes, I’ve been quite clear, except for a time during the summer I’ve been self quarantined for the duration.

 

We must focus on studies of rates of infection in the community. Because that has been the target. If we are going to double down on policy we need to make sure it will be effective. If for some reason it isn’t effective we need to figure out how to make it effective or try something different. Apparently the CDC concurs, because they are pushing social distancing again. I’m not pro mask or anti mask. I’ve never said masks don’t work or recommended against their use. I’ve simply pointed out the possibility overemphasis on their use has come at the expense of other mitigation like social distancing. I’ve been clear numerous times masks can reduce incidence of disease. I’ve warned that assuming that they will is dangerous.

On the Danish study I pointed out the facts. I told you how I decide which posts to respond to. I always point out errors of authoritarians. I don’t care what people uninterested in forcing their views on others believe.

As far as who “likes” my posts I have little control over that. I suppose I could go tribal and try to collect likes from “my tribe” like many do. But I’m here to educate on subjects I know well and learn about others. My posts on science are “liked” by both tribes and centrists at times. That tells me what I need to know. That I’m providing accurate content backed up by science as opposed to emotional diatribes meant to score political points or fire up a “tribe”.

 

Sure. But they were done (or published) after the original recommendation.

As I said, the recommendation to not wear masks was the proper one to make at the time. As more studies were done, the recommendation changed. That doesn't mean it was wrong. It just means we learned.

No. It was not a "mistake". The CDC produces their guidelines following scientific studies. You can't expect the CDC to recommend things before they are supported by proper peer-reviewed studies.

There was even the possibility that they were counter-productive. We just didn't know. Because there were not enough studies.

Before there is evidence, the default position is the one that causes the least damage. Occam's Razor.

The grounds were that they had never recommended masks for this type of diseases. This is from their briefing on January 31.

We do not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general American public. This virus is not spreading in your communities. While it is cold and flu season, we don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness, and we are certainly not recommending that at this time for this novel virus. ​

Even when they recommended masks, there was no evidence that they were protective for the wearer. That evidence didn't surface until relatively recently. But that was not the purpose of using masks.

I don't think the CDC offers recommendations to medical institutions. That's just my assumption given that they have their own experts.

How did they know that? Were there any studies available in January (when the recommendations were issued) showing that masks protected the wearer. If so, could you provide a link?

N95 certified masks protected the wearer. But there weren't any available for the general public. There weren't enough available even for medical personnel. So why would they recommend them? This is not a rhetorical question. Why would they?

It cannot be a lie if they are going by the science available at the time. But if you have reference to show that they knew this in January, that would be interesting to see.

Again, I hope to see your references showing that they knew back in January that this was a good idea.

As for the rest, obviously the CDC did make mistakes. I would attribute responsibility to Trump. Who was obviously intent on hiding information from the public. Maybe they didn't push back hard enough. Maybe they were afraid they would fire them all, hire a bunch of Scott Atlas clones, and things would be much worse.

My comment, though, was only about the masks. I would like to see evidence that they knew in January that wearing cloth masks had any effect.

The one thing that would have made the CDC lose credibility would have been if they started issuing recommendations about which they had no scientific evidence to support them. And there were many fifth columnists inside the CDC undermining their work.

They were walking a fine line between doing their job, and handling the five year old that we put in charge of this country. So the CDC has more grounds to complain about the American people than the American people have to complain about the CDC. Because it was the American people who put an incompetent imbecile in power.