Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't see anyone really popping any champagne.

By the same token we need folks to lay off the alarmism.

I think most folks have formulated an opinion at this point, and much of it is based on media reporting, as opposed to the medical reporting of numbers.

Way too much emotion on the topic, and way too little scientific reasoning filtering into public policy. Doesn't have to be this way. We can be rational creatures, and understand the risks and rewards of our collective behavior.

I'd advocate more transparency, less hysteria, and more "policy by the numbers".

I agree, but I think the alarmism and hysteria have greatly receded already. I think the atmosphere is now much healthier. People start to listen to each other a bit more. There is more moderation and tolerance in people's attitudes.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Zippee

So far Omicron is initially being reported as "milder", which seems to mean no more or less than fewer hospitalizations and deaths, at least for the fully (boosted) people. Around 90% of who ARE hospitalized, venitlated and/or die., are unvaccinated. e



Emphasis: so far.


Now we know that insofar as Delta and earlier, we now know that at least 30% or more suffer long haul effects, even after a year or more - and these include "mild" cases. For example I have a very good friend who was never hospitalized or really treated, but now lives with permanent lung damage and can no longer operate his boat. He was an active guy, great lifetime sailor, whose life is now forever altered.


The point: every other variant has led to the less publicized but equally important outcome of serious long term consequences for even mild cases. Will Omicron be different - we just don't know yet as the data won't be in for months.


It's a bit too soon for us to pop the champagne...

I know several persons who have been debilitated by long covid.

It isn't "a flu" or "a cold", it often has far lingering effects.

My cousin's daughter was a junior in high school, an athlete on three of the school's team, brightest student in her class. She got Covid in November 2020, and missed the second half of her junior year with long Covid, severe fatigue, brain fog, head and joint aches, depression, etc. She and her parents travelled from Montana to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota for six weeks of intensive psychological training and therapy with the hope and intent to teach her how to learn again, and her parent's as to being enablers of her, so that she could reenter high school this past Fall. The virus has harmed her in so many ways. School will be a major challenge, she is hoping to be able to successfully repeat her junior year again and perhaps regain her remarkable intellect and athleticism. The disease has changed her very much for the worse and I fear perhaps permanently.

In a recent pre-print study posted to the medRxiv* pre-print server, a team of researchers assessed the prevalence, risk factors, severity, and impact on quality of life (QoL) of persisting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms in the first year after an individual is diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

FYI"

Blomberg reported that 61% of all the patients had persisting symptoms at 6 months.
This included patients with a mild to moderate illness following initial illness as well as young patients (16-30 years). Persisting symptoms included loss of taste and or smell, fatigue, dyspnea, impaired concentration and memory problems. In a hospitalized population, fatigue, muscle weakness, sleep difficulties and anxiety or depression are the most prevalent symptoms at 6 months.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...009v1.full.pdf

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Montanan

I know several persons who have been debilitated by long covid.

It isn't "a flu" or "a cold", it often has far lingering effects.

My cousin's daughter was a junior in high school, an athlete on three of the school's team, brightest student in her class. She got Covid in November 2020, and missed the second half of her junior year with long Covid, severe fatigue, brain fog, head and joint aches, depression, etc. ...
...

Bloomberg reported that 61% of all the patients had persisting symptoms at 6 months.
This included patients with a mild to moderate illness following initial illness as well as young patients (16-30 years). Persisting symptoms included loss of taste and or smell, fatigue, dyspnea, impaired concentration and memory problems. In a hospitalized population, fatigue, muscle weakness, sleep difficulties and anxiety or depression are the most prevalent symptoms at 6 months.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...009v1.full.pdf

The sobering realization that low death and hospitalization rates may not be quite the success we seek. Without going into detail, we are learning the descriptor "mild or milder" may be misleading. This is not like having a runny nose for two days. It can be weeks of agony - yet "milder" because we suffered at home?

Thanks for sharing the sad story of your extended family's daughter, so sad and unforutnately, so real. Over the past month or so I've seen more and more studies that confirm that from 30% - up to your reported 60% of all who are infected, mild or not, and from all age groups suffer life affecting long term consequences. These can go far as organ damage. Neuro effects and extreme fatigue are likely to change our lives in every way.

It looks like Omicron may well lead to an endemic outcome, but epidemiologists continue to warn that such massive and explosive spread over the entire world certainly provides the opportunity for more variants in the next months. I don't want to even imagine if the infectiousness of the Omicron combines with Delta or some other more deadly component. We will have to be patient until we determine if Omicron too will demonstrate these long term sequelae.

This is a case for very cautious hope - to stay alive - but for the world of science and medicine to address the 30%-60% of us who experience long haul damage, some permanent. We must all face the facts and work for unity in purpose. Any tools we have - masking, social distancing, etc - that will reduce transmission will not only help protect one another, but will reduce the number of transmissions and the opportunity for mutation.

It's a new world. Anyone feel like Columbus? Will we too spread a serious disease? Or not?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

The sobering realization that low death and hospitalization rates may not be quite the success we seek. Without going into detail, we are learning the descriptor "mild or milder" may be misleading. This is not like having a runny nose for two days. It can be weeks of agony - yet "milder" because we suffered at home?

Thanks for sharing the sad story of your extended family's daughter, so sad and unforutnately, so real. Over the past month or so I've seen more and more studies that confirm that from 30% - up to your reported 60% of all who are infected, mild or not, and from all age groups suffer life affecting long term consequences. These can go far as organ damage. Neuro effects and extreme fatigue are likely to change our lives in every way.

It looks like Omicron may well lead to an endemic outcome, but epidemiologists continue to warn that such massive and explosive spread over the entire world certainly provides the opportunity for more variants in the next months. I don't want to even imagine if the infectiousness of the Omicron combines with Delta or some other more deadly component. We will have to be patient until we determine if Omicron too will demonstrate these long term sequelae.

This is a case for very cautious hope - to stay alive - but for the world of science and medicine to address the 30%-60% of us who experience long haul damage, some permanent. We must all face the facts and work for unity in purpose. Any tools we have - masking, social distancing, etc - that will reduce transmission will not only help protect one another, but will reduce the number of transmissions and the opportunity for mutation.

It's a new world. Anyone feel like Columbus? Will we too spread a serious disease? Or not?

We already have and will continue to do so for those who are vulnerable (vaxed or not), but it's looking increasingly unlikely to result in "serious disease" for most. With an estimated 95% of cases in the US (and probably elsewhere) now comprised of the Omicron variant, relying on stats and anecdotal evidence of Long Covid for Delta and other pre-Omicron variants sounds all too alarmist in my opinion. As you have acknowledged on occasion, it's too early for science to have confirmed long-term effects from Omicron, but it's also fair to say at this point that millions of people have been infected with Omicron and fully recovered with minimal or even zero symptoms. For the vast majority, it never enters the lungs -- does this mean it never has a chance to enter the blood stream and spread to other parts of the body? Sounds logical but I am not a doctor.

It's also looking increasingly likely that, with so many vaccinated/boosted people getting infected, the unvaccinated may no longer pose much additional threat to anyone except themselves. So the rationale for focusing efforts to restrict, segregate, and even vilify them for keeping the virus in circulation/promoting new variants, etc. will hopefully be reconsidered. The other rationale -- namely the unvaccinated being largely responsible for overburdening hospitals and ICU's -- remains a paramount concern, of course, but it's also looking increasingly likely that such scenarios have and will peak rather quickly. While I'm not in any position to evaluate media reports of ICU's being inundated (not following the Canada thread), hopefully more sober minds will at least consider other factors in play that have already been discussed, namely ICU's generally operating at near capacity under normal circumstances, and the practice of many hospitals not to distinguish between patients admitted directly due to Covid and those admitted where a Covid diagnosis is incidental. Not trying to unrealistically minimize this, only to point out that personal fear and even partisan instincts -- played to by many media outlets -- can often skew objectivity.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't see anyone really popping any champagne.

By the same token we need folks to lay off the alarmism.

I think most folks have formulated an opinion at this point, and much of it is based on media reporting, as opposed to the medical reporting of numbers.

Way too much emotion on the topic, and way too little scientific reasoning filtering into public policy. Doesn't have to be this way. We can be rational creatures, and understand the risks and rewards of our collective behavior.

I'd advocate more transparency, less hysteria, and more "policy by the numbers".

I fully agree with this as well, and would also point out how little control any of us likely have over some of the more dire future "what-if's" that some have been speculating about. "Learning to live with Covid" has almost become a cliche but seems to be more justified now than ever, especially when the downsides of leaving restrictions and mandates in place are properly weighed.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Zippee

The sobering realization that low death and hospitalization rates may not be quite the success we seek. Without going into detail, we are learning the descriptor "mild or milder" may be misleading. This is not like having a runny nose for two days. It can be weeks of agony - yet "milder" because we suffered at home?

Thanks for sharing the sad story of your extended family's daughter, so sad and unforutnately, so real. Over the past month or so I've seen more and more studies that confirm that from 30% - up to your reported 60% of all who are infected, mild or not, and from all age groups suffer life affecting long term consequences. These can go far as organ damage. Neuro effects and extreme fatigue are likely to change our lives in every way.

It looks like Omicron may well lead to an endemic outcome, but epidemiologists continue to warn that such massive and explosive spread over the entire world certainly provides the opportunity for more variants in the next months. I don't want to even imagine if the infectiousness of the Omicron combines with Delta or some other more deadly component. We will have to be patient until we determine if Omicron too will demonstrate these long term sequelae.

This is a case for very cautious hope - to stay alive - but for the world of science and medicine to address the 30%-60% of us who experience long haul damage, some permanent. We must all face the facts and work for unity in purpose. Any tools we have - masking, social distancing, etc - that will reduce transmission will not only help protect one another, but will reduce the number of transmissions and the opportunity for mutation.

It's a new world. Anyone feel like Columbus? Will we too spread a serious disease? Or not?

This is the type of dangerous alarmist nonsense , that annoys me , it’s as if some people want this to be the new normal. There is no evident that the spread of Omicron will lead to new mutations. Covid 19 is not particularly mutagenic anyway and omicron will deliver enormous natural immunity as so many people will be infected

Like the old adage of never let your accountant run your business , society should not be run by public health experts , because humans do not live by the “ precautionary “ principle. We evaluate risk every minute and live our lives with risk. The car is a classic example

Covid is an illness , people die from illness , the worst killer in 2020 in the USA is heart disease. Killing nearly three times what Covid is doing. Yet the US does almost nothing to stamp it out. Perhaps a program of shutting down fast food might be better then social distancing regulations .

This pandemic will and is passing , the virus is following the predicted path of greater transmissibility and decreasing pathogenic effect. The resulting natural immunity will reduce the hosts for the virus. It’s how humans have been dealing with virus for centuries.

Science will help , but in the end our bodies know best.

[Montanan]

Meanwhile in France: Bring your vaccine passport, never leave home without it.

One does not have to become fully vaccinated, but one must if they desire to participate fully within the public society.

Up to now, a COVID-19 pass has been required in France to go to public venues such as restaurants, movie theaters, museums and many sites throughout the country, but unvaccinated people have been allowed in if they show a recent negative test or proof of recent recovery.

The new law requires full vaccination for such venues, including tourist sites, many trains and all domestic flights, and applies to everyone 16 and over. Some exceptions could be made for those who recently recovered from COVID-19. The law also imposes tougher fines for fake passes and allows ID checks to avoid fraud.

The National Assembly adopted the law by a vote of 215-58.

More than 91% of French adults are already fully vaccinated.



As to the USA:

I have recently downloaded my Smart Health Card via an phone app providing me with a QR code certification of my three Moderna shot status, albeit very few venues requiring such in Montana, yet. But undoubtedly will be useful when I renew traveling again. My pharmacy, where I received my shots upload my vaccination records to my digital health records and that private record base then sent me an email notifying me to download the app and QR code, so now I have a certifiable digital record and my physical vaccination card.

"Whether they realize it or not, about 200 million people in the United States now likely have access to a Covid-19 digital vaccine card. The digital pass known as the SMART Health Card is voluntary and minimal by design to protect personal information. It has a person’s name, date of birth and the dates and brands of vaccination doses, all contained within a type of scannable bar code known as a QR code. And after a relatively quiet start, it has built momentum in recent months as more states and companies have signed on, making it something of a de facto national digital vaccine card.

“The beautiful thing about this is that this multistate coalition is a coalition of the willing,” . . .

Rather than a single app, the SMART Health Card is open-source computer code that anyone can use to ping a verified source of health data and produce the unique QR code. The digital cards are now widely available from more than 400 sources including states, pharmacies and health care organizations.

The fact that the system exists in any form is a triumph for a loose coalition of technologists, nonprofit groups and mostly Democratic states that championed the development of a digital vaccine card even before the first coronavirus shots were administered.

“This is a de facto standard,” . . . “This is essentially the one common way for US residents to secure that digital copy and then use it.”

The digital card offers a few benefits beyond a paper card. QR codes can't be forged in the way a paper card could be, because a restaurant or a music venue can use a scanner app to verify that it's legitimate. People can also download the QR code again if they lose it, adding a convenience factor.
People can get the QR code from their state health authority if they've been vaccinated in one of the 13 states now participating, but they may also be able to get them from a hospital or from a national pharmacy chain, such as Albertsons, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens or stores like Walmart if they've been vaccinated at any of their locations.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...rged-rcna11678

[Exile]

Oh goodie, the digital vax card in the US will become widely available at about the same time as test kits and treatments, and just in time for the end (hopefully) of the pandemic when they will no longer be needed. But it looks like many will refuse to accept this hoped for reality, and will insist on continuing to restrict themselves -- and others of course -- accordingly.

Meanwhile, and despite the best efforts of petty politicians and their loyal partisans, there is little actual evidence to suggest that policy differences regarding restrictions between Democratic & Republican states are correlating let alone causing corresponding infection rates. Not when heavily Democratic Rhode Island tops the list for infections of all 50 states, Florida & NY are not far apart, and Texas is doing demonstrably better than Massachusetts, Michigan, and even -- wait for it -- Montana. California is doing quite well but NY is not, while other states are lining up in more predictable(??) ways.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...cans-by-state/

Maybe it's the lack of available testing skewing the stats, but I haven't seen much to substantiate all the efforts that have been made to either praise or revile various states for the sake of cheap political gain. Does this prove that more restrictive policies have been futile all along? Of course not. But it also doesn't mean that less restrictive policies can be blamed on politics, ignorance, religious beliefs, economic greed, or -- dare I say -- the unvaccinated. Much more objective evidence will be needed if such blame is to be substantiated, but this won't stop those who prioritize emotion, alarmism and blind partisanship over science, rationality, and common sense.

It will be interesting to see how such comparisons shake out amongst various nations.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

. .



Meanwhile, and despite the best efforts of petty politicians and their loyal partisans, there is little actual evidence to suggest that policy differences regarding restrictions between Democratic & Republican states are correlating let alone causing corresponding infection rates. Not when heavily Democratic Rhode Island tops the list for infections of all 50 states, Florida & NY are not far apart, and Texas is doing demonstrably better than Massachusetts, Michigan, and even -- wait for it -- Montana. California is doing quite well but NY is not, while other states are lining up in more predictable(??) ways.



https://www.statista.com/statistics/...cans-by-state/



Maybe it's the lack of available testing skewing the stats, but I haven't seen much to substantiate all the efforts that have been made to either praise or revile various states for the sake of cheap political gain. Does this prove that more restrictive policies have been futile all along? Of course not. But it also doesn't mean that less restrictive policies can be blamed on politics, ignorance, religious beliefs, economic greed, or -- dare I say -- the unvaccinated. Much more objective evidence will be needed if such blame is to be substantiated, but this won't stop those who prioritize emotion, alarmism and blind partisanship over science, rationality, and common sense.



It will be interesting to see how such comparisons shake out amongst various nations.

It seems to me that the politicization of pandemic response around the the world has subsided to some extent. One reason is perhaps that you can't prove much of anything by comparing responses vs outcomes in different countries and states. It's too complicated for that, and cause and effect are too tangled up. So it's hard (or rather, impossible) to make a case that you have to do x, y and z or everyone will die. Nor can you prove that x, y or z are unnecessary just because these countries did fine without those measures, because doing fine might have been a cause, rather than effect.

So we will just have to wait for a bunch of science to be done before we really understand anything. My guess is that the harshest measures do more harm than good, but we won't know that for sure until a bunch more science is done. Science not only on the effecacity of different measures, but also on the cost and collateral damage done. I guess there are enough possible dissertation topics for a whole generation of public health scientists.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It seems to me that the politicization of pandemic response around the the world has subsided to some extent. One reason is perhaps that you can't prove much of anything by comparing responses vs outcomes in different countries and states. It's too complicated for that, and cause and effect are too tangled up. So it's hard (or rather, impossible) to make a case that you have to do x, y and z or everyone will die. Nor can you prove that x, y or z are unnecessary just because these countries did fine without those measures, because doing fine might have been a cause, rather than effect.

So we will just have to wait for a bunch of science to be done before we really understand anything. My guess is that the harshest measures do more harm than good, but we won't know that for sure until a bunch more science is done. Science not only on the effecacity of different measures, but also on the cost and collateral damage done. I guess there are enough possible dissertation topics for a whole generation of public health scientists.

I couldn't agree more, but as you well know the absence of proof often has little to do with politically driven rhetoric, especially when it is driven by media outlets which have tailored their reporting to their respective audiences. It's very difficult for people to overcome such deep-seated biases with the sort of statistics and facts linked above. I hope you're correct that this is moderating in other parts of the world, but here in the US it remains toxic, with unrelenting attacks on state governors (from both sides) and prominent public health officials like Dr. Fauci. I abhor this, and it's reminiscent of the misinformed attacks on Dr. Tegnell. Not that such officials wielding that much power and authority should be immune from constructive critique, but the partisan nature of the attacks here in the US has accomplished little but increased distrust of govt and polarization. The last thing we need to see this through, especially if (god forbid) the justified optimism over Omicron turns out to be for naught.

[Zippee]

Fortunately - or not - the basics have long been known how respiratory viruses spread from person to person. We also have long known that virus transmission is a function of dosage and time.

The more virus, the more time, the more likely there will be transmission and the more likely the infection will be more serious. A thought experiment: if a region or even the world were able to simulataneously quarantine for two weeks, the virus would be driven to such low levels that aggressive testing and tracing could again be done with rapid response teams.

But of course that's not the case. The world was not ready, their is no unity in our wack-a-mole differing responses, the responses were poor and delayed and virus is now unstoppable. But the good news is there is plenty we can do.

Mask wearing with reasonable social distancing by all will reduce transmission rates by easily 70-90% and slow things down enough to reduce the stress on our essential and even non-essential service - to the point that we can reach a more liveable endemic phase with the least possible damage.

You can also be sure that along with the US Army, an all-variant vaccine is in our reasonable future, not to mention improved treatments. Meanwhile we can all do plenty to protect ourselves and our own spaces.

Dosage and time. We can reduce both dramatically by ourselves.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

* * *

The world was not ready, their is no unity in our wack-a-mole differing responses, the responses were poor and delayed and virus is now unstoppable. But the good news is there is plenty we can do.

The only response I'm aware of that was actually proven effective, was more timely than anyone could have imagined, and likely saved countless lives, were the vaccines. Certainly the world's response could have been better, but you're making an unsupported assumption that a unified, timely, and coordinated response would have rendered the virus "stoppable." You may want to at least consider the not unrealistic scenario that such events may not be subject to human control.

Mask wearing with reasonable social distancing by all will reduce transmission rates by easily 70-90% and slow things down enough to reduce the stress on our essential and even non-essential service - to the point that we can reach a more liveable endemic phase with the least possible damage.

I'd like to see some actual authority for your stats. Social distancing certainly makes sense, perhaps masks as well but probably less so (depending on type of mask). Neither of these measures, however, seem to have helped with the spread of Omicron. Notwithstanding, I think most were okay with both measures since they generally came at little (but not zero) cost, but they should now be re-evaluated given Omicron's high transmissibility. And as just discussed, the lack of correlation between restrictions and outcomes belies your professed certainty over the effectiveness of any such restrictions. Again, not necessarily an argument against such measures, but hardly the type of absolute solution you're assuming, especially now with Omicron infection rates seemingly overcoming all efforts to mitigate.

You can also be sure that along with the US Army, an all-variant vaccine is in our reasonable future, not to mention improved treatments. Meanwhile we can all do plenty to protect ourselves and our own spaces.

Dosage and time. We can reduce both dramatically by ourselves.

Perhaps, but I don't think Omicron's takeover and its developing stats necessarily support this type of thinking anymore. I don't have a problem with practicing masking & social distancing on the basis that it might help (and to be respectful of others), but the only "dramatic" evidence I'm seeing thus far that is within our control is the continued efficacy of vaccines/boosters reducing severity of illness, even if their efficacy against infection seems to be less so. Are you aware of any scientific info/stats which suggest otherwise?

[Dockhead]

I'll be offline for 12 days (according to our plan) crossing the Atlantic from Cape Verde to Antigua. Sure hope to see improving numbers when I'm back to civilization!

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Exile

Perhaps, but I don't think Omicron's takeover and its developing stats necessarily support this type of thinking anymore. I don't have a problem with practicing masking & social distancing on the basis that it might help (and to be respectful of others), but the only "dramatic" evidence I'm seeing thus far that is within our control is the continued efficacy of vaccines/boosters reducing severity of illness, even if their efficacy against infection seems to be less so. Are you aware of any scientific info/stats which suggest otherwise?

Perhaps you misunderstood. Of course vaccines are important, but only if people take them and I assumed that those who actually believed in science have already done so, and will be getting boosted as soon as it is possible. Nonetheless we have had two years and the world is far from reaching the 90% or better vaccinated now needed. Not to mention Omicron infects both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

I assume most will agree. I was addressing what is our own personal control to do in our own personal lives. We can't force others to vaccinate, but we CAN wear masks and we CAN social distance and we CAN act wisely in our own personal lives.

There are studies galore about the effectiveness of masks. The particular scientific explanation I remember (will try to find it again and PM it to you), I can at least summarize: if two people meet - one infected - and both are wearing say 50% effective masks (due to leakage). When the infected person exhales, note that the mask prevents 50% of the dosage from passing his mask. The exhaled 50% is now reduced by another 50% by the non-infected person's mask and is further reduced by another 50%, such that only 25% of the dosage actually is inhaled by the non-infected person.

Mind you that's with two leaky masks - with the transfer being reduced by a total 75%. But that study pointed out it gets even better. All such infections are based on time and dosage. It pointed out that the dosage effect is exponential. The dosage curve demonstrated that for example if you double the dosage, the chance of infection MORE than doubles. The reverse is true: If you reduce the dosage by the 75% above, the chance of infection is reduced by MORE than that - as the articles dosage curve demonstrated a 75% reduction of dosage therefore reduces the chance of infection by over 90%.

Mind you this is with two ordinary, leaky blue surgical masks. The point: if people all wear masks - not knowing who is infected - we all together greatly reduce the rate of infection and thus greatly slow the spread and to slow down hospitalizations, spreading cases over a longer period of time.

Social distancing has similar effects. The dosage transferred when someone coughs face to face is obviously far less if they are 6 to 10 feet apart. We can also control the amount of time we spend in higher risk locations, and to avoid large and unprotected gatherings.

In sum - I was speaking to what we can do right now - in our own lives, today - to help reduce dosage, time and infection.





So Laird - no one disagrees (well, a few do) that vaccinations and good hospitals don't help. I sure wasn't But that wasn't my point, you see. Be safe, be well, wear your mask and social distance. BTW, the mutual reduction is even greater and for longer when wearing N95's...

[longjonsilver]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Perhaps you misunderstood. Of course vaccines are important, but only if people take them and I assumed that those who actually believed in science have already done so, and will be getting boosted as soon as it is possible. Nonetheless we have had two years and the world is far from reaching the 90% or better vaccinated now needed. Not to mention Omicron infects both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

I assume most will agree. I was addressing what is our own personal control to do in our own personal lives. We can't force others to vaccinate, but we CAN wear masks and we CAN social distance and we CAN act wisely in our own personal lives.

There are studies galore about the effectiveness of masks. The particular scientific explanation I remember (will try to find it again and PM it to you), I can at least summarize: if two people meet - one infected - and both are wearing say 50% effective masks (due to leakage). When the infected person exhales, note that the mask prevents 50% of the dosage from passing his mask. The exhaled 50% is now reduced by another 50% by the non-infected person's mask and is further reduced by another 50%, such that only 25% of the dosage actually is inhaled by the non-infected person.

Mind you that's with two leaky masks - with the transfer being reduced by a total 75%. But that study pointed out it gets even better. All such infections are based on time and dosage. It pointed out that the dosage effect is exponential. The dosage curve demonstrated that for example if you double the dosage, the chance of infection MORE than doubles. The reverse is true: If you reduce the dosage by the 75% above, the chance of infection is reduced by MORE than that - as the articles dosage curve demonstrated a 75% reduction of dosage therefore reduces the chance of infection by over 90%.

Mind you this is with two ordinary, leaky blue surgical masks. The point: if people all wear masks - not knowing who is infected - we all together greatly reduce the rate of infection and thus greatly slow the spread and to slow down hospitalizations, spreading cases over a longer period of time.

Social distancing has similar effects. The dosage transferred when someone coughs face to face is obviously far less if they are 6 to 10 feet apart. We can also control the amount of time we spend in higher risk locations, and to avoid large and unprotected gatherings.

In sum - I was speaking to what we can do right now - in our own lives, today - to help reduce dosage, time and infection.





So Laird - no one disagrees (well, a few do) that vaccinations and good hospitals don't help. I sure wasn't But that wasn't my point, you see. Be safe, be well, wear your mask and social distance. BTW, the mutual reduction is even greater and for longer when wearing N95's...

Exile here, not Laird (), and no, I don't think I misunderstood your comments. The longstanding debate over masks centers around the fact that the virus is microscopic, and will only block virus which is encapsulated in mucus droplets. More often than not Omicron doesn't produce mucus or other such symptoms, and in most cases settles in the upper respiratory tract/bronchial tubes where it is much easier circulated into the open air. This is one of the reasons cited for its high transmissibility, and it also raises further doubts about the effectiveness of masks.

But the efficacy of masks is a very old debate at this point which most have resolved in favor of compliance for the simple reason that the cost & inconvenience is low, and it "might" help. So I don't think further schooling is helpful or needed, but the fact that we're being advised that almost everyone will be exposed suggests the possible futility of mandating such measures. And the fact that Omicron has been shown to present a threat of serious illness & death primarily to the vulnerable -- vaccinated or not apparently(??) -- also suggests that our response should perhaps be redirected towards prevention & treatment on a more individualized basis.

In other words, my point is that your advisements for everyone to mask, socially distance, etc. are looking increasingly outdated if not symbolic today in light of Omicron. If one has symptoms or is vulnerable, then yes, of course. But for everyone to continue to be restricted in light of a virus which produces little or no cold-like symptoms for a few days, and everyone will become infected with regardless? Not sure about that one. Time will tell, and until it does I don't have any scientific basis to outright disagree with you. But from what the stats & science are telling us thus far, I think you may be making assumptions that have less applicability to this latest variant. As others have pointed out, nature may in fact be calling the shots here and we humans may have to get used to the idea of having less control than we often think we have.