Coronavirus (Long Beach: fit in, live, law)

[ThinkingOutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

People under 5 literally have a mortality rate of something like 1/6000000. My toddler (and his friends) caught Delta from group activities and it was seriously below severity of colds he's had and certainly below RSV.

The thing is that experience was exactly what all peer reviewed papers, his doctor etc told me to expect. He basically had a low fever for 4 days and a slight cough. People months out from pregnancy aren't at any more serious risk and pregnant people can be vaccinated and give antibodies to their babies in utero and through breast milk anyway.

I find debate fun, but please try to use real data.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...l-covid-spread

As for the aerosol vs droplet spread theory it seems new variants are far more contagious and spread through aerosols. This makes masks far less useful than with Delta/Beta. Because virons cab aerosolize in the air it makes masks less useful than if it spread on droplets.

I know of Bay Area families whose kids literally haven't been anywhere other than socially distanced walks in their own neighborhoods in over two years because their kids can't be vaccinated yet. They are convinced that their kid will die if they get Covid from being exposed to unmasked people at a store.

[beachGecko]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Not true.

What's not true?

Science Brief: Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html

CDC proclamations are not science. While we hope they'd base their proclamations on science, as we learned throughout this pandemic, they don't do such a thing, and were wrong every step of the way.

Besides that, I skimmed this, and didn't see anything on droplets vs aerosols.

Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2776536

This is not a scientific study but an article written about some cherry picked studies.

How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883189/

This is again not a scientific study but an article/musing. The author writes about possible ways masks can reduce transmission without doing any study to confirm. As would be stated in science, they're advancing a hypothesis, now we need to put it to a test.

Face masks for COVID pass their largest test yet:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

This one is hilarious. It's another article based on a real study done in Bangladesh. The results are less than stellar.

The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]),

https://www.poverty-action.org/sites...211108.pdf.pdf

0.91 means surgical masks reduced transmission by 9%. The 95% confidence interval includes 1.00 (no effect) meaning their results were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

This is an example of propaganda. A journalist takes a study, exaggerates the result, and the lay person who will never click on the actual study takes it at face value. I already mentioned this study somewhere in this thread.

Link?

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...-corridor.aspx

If this was indeed how they caught COVID, then the droplet theory of transmission is out the window. Droplets cannot travel like that, but aerosols can.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

People under 5 literally have a mortality rate of something like 1/6000000. My toddler (and his friends) caught Delta from group activities and it was seriously below severity of colds he's had and certainly below RSV.

The thing is that experience was exactly what all peer reviewed papers, his doctor etc told me to expect. He basically had a low fever for 4 days and a slight cough. People months out from pregnancy aren't at any more serious risk and pregnant people can be vaccinated and give antibodies to their babies in utero and through breast milk anyway.

I find debate fun, but please try to use real data.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...l-covid-spread

As for the aerosol vs droplet spread theory it seems new variants are far more contagious and spread through aerosols. This makes masks far less useful than with Delta/Beta. Because virons cab aerosolize in the air it makes masks less useful than if it spread on droplets.

Please pay attention to things already posted. Vaccinating pregnant women does not reduce their risk to near-normal levels. It's a recent finding.

Deaths of very young children probably has been artificially held down by extra guarding of them parents have been doing, along with a factual, probably somewhat intentional drop in the birth rate. For the first year of the pandemic (with schools mostly shut and many women leaving the workforce to care for their kids), it probably was rare for them to be infected. This idea of "we're back to normal" plus the virus being transmitted more easily than ever independent of precautions will have negative consequences for the very young, death once again not the only major damage the virus can cause people.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Deaths of very young children probably has been artificially held down by extra guarding of them parents have been doing, along with a factual, probably somewhat intentional drop in the birth rate. For the first year of the pandemic (with schools mostly shut and many women leaving the workforce to care for their kids), it probably was rare for them to be infected. This idea of "we're back to normal" plus the virus being transmitted more easily than ever independent of precautions will have negative consequences for the very young, death once again not the only major damage the virus can cause people.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...867-1/fulltext

Again conjecture with nothing to back it up.

We've known covid for an unvaccinated 10 year old is thousands of times less deadly than for a fully vaccinated 70 year old for a year now. Yes it really is less dangerous by orders of magnitude less. It only extremely rarely turns into severe pneumonia. Cross-reactive immunity to colds, different expression of proteins on the lungs that the virus can't bind as efficiently to, and most importantly immune systems that are better at dealing with novel diseases (adults' immune systems rely more on memory instead) help immensely.

There are crazy people that isolate their kids and wealthy people that can afford to have stay at home parents but even then I'd say the majority do not even in ridiculous places like the Bay Area. Most kids like mine were sick multiple times a year similar to other years. Most kids go to some activities, pre-school. And they hang out with friends.

[goodheathen]

You were fixating on under-5 (a number I chose partly because that's the vaccination-age cutoff) and now throwing in age 10, while ignoring what the graphs from that link show. The risk, maybe up to age 3, is much higher than for older children and higher than for 20-somethings (I suppose a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated, but those groups are very unlikely to die regardless of vaccine status). Do you think I've been posting about a made-up idea? I heard about the extra risk from news reports and the explanation that the immune system isn't fully operational. Not that anyone should have to be told that the tiniest humans are extra fragile.

I just saw this, mostly about vaccines for the little ones. (Which by the way supports my long-stated assertion that vaccines for adults or at least Johnson & Johnson, the one I spoke worst of, probably wouldn't have been approved for what we've faced recently, due to poor performance.)
https://www.statnews.com/2022/03/23/...hs-to-6-years/
So, the likely vaccine on the way will help, but maybe not much and not for the many parents who won't feel safe giving a new vaccine to children so young.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by stablegenius

I don’t see many pregnant women at concerts do you? I don’t see why the rest of the world should stop having concerts on the off chance a pregnant woman decides to go to one and honestly she has a choice to not go which is probably in the best interest of her child as well. But the point you seem to be making is that the world stop turning so that pregnant women don’t feel like they are missing out or something???

My wife and I saw Jay and the Americans on March 2, 1996. My son, coincidentally names Jay (in my religion we name for deceased relatives) was born March 8, 1996. He's a successful engineer and doing quite fine.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by beachGecko

What's not true?

Follow the thread.

Originally Posted by rodentraiser

You guys aren't getting how masks for this virus work.

The virus rides on droplets you let out when you sneeze, cough, or generally breathe. The mask prevents the droplets which carry the virus from expanding out to the next person.

Originally Posted by beachGecko

TBH, no one knows exactly. That's just a hypothesis.

And I'm not going to argue with an anti vaxxer, no matter how many links you post to support your position.

[beachGecko]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Follow the thread.

And I'm not going to argue with an anti vaxxer, no matter how many links you post to support your position.

Oh noooes, I'm an anti vaxxer!

I bet a lot of people are regretting getting vaccinated. They took those jabs, felt crummy for a day (or more for some) and still got COVID. Jokes on you vaxxers!

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

It's also pregnant women (and probably a few months post-pregnancy), children under 5, and most people over 80 - their immune systems do not work well...

A coworker mentioned that he'd booked a flight awhile ago with his pregnant wife and toddler, and was upset that the mask mandate had been lifted.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

A coworker mentioned that he'd booked a flight awhile ago with his pregnant wife and toddler, and was upset that the mask mandate had been lifted.

Boo hoo.