Because it kills people at an incredible rate. — Valentinus

what rate is that exactly? Last I checked it was about 1%. Hardly impressive, much less incredible. Ebola is around 70% fatal. Way more impressive. Not incredible, but impressive. 99.8% fatal would be incredible. When does that happen? Because THAT would be a cool little beastie!

The virus may be 1.25 microns, but it travels in much larger water droplets that you exhale into the air, if not wearing a mask. Wearing a mask prevents you infecting others.

They are still in the air, mask or no mask. The air I exhale moves around and through the mask, hence the fogging of my safety glasses. As for it preventing me from infecting others...only if I have the virus, which currently, I do not, so again, useless.

Since I am unconcerned about catching this virus I am equally concerned about passing it around. I believe that healthy immune systems should be used and am not a huge supporter of protecting the vulnerable. We have a lot of vulnerable around, protecting them all the time only means we end up with more, that need more protecting, etc. The ever expanding circle of protecting everyone from, everything, eventually. Just seems silly.

For those of you, like InPitzotl, that have difficulty in understanding the difference between "social distancing" and "herd immunity", — Roger Gregoire

Pathetic ad hominem attempt. There's obviously a difference between avoiding people and vaccinating them, so either you're dense beyond reason or you're intellectually dishonest. Which leads one to wonder, what is your motivation? Might you be desperate to peddle your theories because you cannot actually show your human vacuum cleaner theory true?

Bottom-line — Roger Gregoire

Nope. The bottom line is this:

For the more healthy people we get to take off their masks and start social distancing full time, the faster this virus will dissipate, and the more lives we will save. — Roger Gregoire

...versus this:

To control a germ, the goal is to get enough people {recovered and immune} and fewer people {dead} so that the germ has no susceptible people left to infect. Some people {Roger} argue we should get people into the immune bucket by just letting them get infected, and then recover, like a big global chicken pox party for Covid-19. But without a vaccine, if the only pathway to this recovered group is to get infected, that means some people are going to end up here... dead. What a vaccine does is let you jump straight from {susceptible} to {recovered and immune}, and avoid {dead}. And if we have a choice that lets us avoid death, why wouldn't we take it? — Dr. Joe Hanson

https://youtu.be/Et_J8_x4qBs?t=604

...and your human vacuum cleaner theory is not a thing.

The ultimate idiocracy of our current covid policy is keeping those recently vaccinated continually masked and social distancing.

If we don't un-mask our healthy immune people and let them return to full time socializing to participate in achieving herd immunity, then the virus will only grow and continue to mutate (into potentially more deadly strains), resulting in many more massive deaths.

******************
P1. Herd immunity is the only way to stop this virus. Virtually every medical expert/scientist agree.

P2. We achieve herd immunity by allowing our healthy immune people (i.e. our recently vaccinated and previously infected who now have protective antibodies) to mingle back INTO the herd.

C1. BUT therefore, if we keep these healthy immune people AWAY from the herd by masking and social distancing them, then we cannot achieve herd immunity.

P3. AND if we don't start stopping this virus via herd immunity, then the virus will only continue to grow and mutate.

C2. AND therefore, if we still keep preventing herd immunity by continuing to mask and socially distance our healthy immune people away from the herd, then WE ALL DIE.

IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

*******************

If you have been recently vaccinated, or were previously infected, then take off the damn mask and start socializing asap! Start participating in achieving herd immunity. Keeping our healthy immune people from the herd, only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate.

The science is clear on masks preventing an aerosol of water droplets sprayed into the air by you, and breathed in by other people. You don't know if you have the virus for quite a while after you have it. That's how viruses get around. Besides which; it's not your job to decide how to fight this virus. This is a situation where the patriotic thing to do, the sensible and capitalist thing to do, is wear the mask, wash your hands, keep your distance from people, and get vaccinated asap.

Healthy people wearing masks kills vulnerable people. Save a life, take off your mask.

********************
We are fast approaching (if we have not already reached) a point-of-no-return. If we don't immediately un-mask every available healthy person soon, humans will be the next extinct creature on this planet.

This statement above is not meant to be "inflammatory". It is meant to be a "true dire WARNING". The extinction of humans within the next 5-10 years is an unavoidable logical consequence of the continued isolation (masking and social distancing) of healthy people.

Vaccines are USELESS if we don't let the vaccinated people (along with other healthy people) participate in achieving herd immunity, and start "removing" (stopping) this virus from our environment. Right now there is absolutely NOTHING stopping this virus from continued growth and mutation within the environment. And we can only "social distance" (run and hide) so far before the virus will ultimately overwhelm us.

So if herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus, then what the hell are we waiting for??

********************
Note: contrary to bad science, those recently vaccinated (and those previously infected) can only help us achieve herd immunity ONLY IF we un-mask them and allow them to fully socialize. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves; falsely believing that these vaccines will contribute to herd immunity.

If there is nothing to stop the virus, then nothing will stop the virus! ...it's as simple as that.

********************
Referring to the graphic below, without the "H" doing its part, then not only will the "V"'s be sitting ducks and turn into "I"'s (and then into dead people), but there will also be a lessening of available "H"'s to help fight this virus as it continues to grow and mutate. Logically the end is near if we don't wake up and realize our utter foolishness.

The rhetoric is clear. The science, not so much. I have studies that show my non-medical grade mask (required to be worn by hospital staff) doubles the chances of catching respiratory viruses. I also have studies that show wearing a cloth mask increases the chances of catching a respiratory virus by a factor of 13. Peer reviewed, robust studies.

Besides which; it's not your job to decide how to fight this virus. This is a situation where the patriotic thing to do, the sensible and capitalist thing to do, is wear the mask, wash your hands, keep your distance from people, and get vaccinated asap. — counterpunch

It kind of is my job to decide how to fight this virus, I am supposed to sell the public health pitch to my patients so it is more than slightly helpful if I believe it at all.
No idea how wearing a mask is patriotic, feel free to explain that one.
Capitalist, sure, if you are selling masks.
Wash your hands and keep your distance. Absolutely, but that isn't new, so no changes there.
Get vaccinated asap. Not a bloody chance. I won't stop anyone from getting it if they want to as I believe in personal autonomy, but I also believe in informed consent, and at this point, I have nowhere near enough information to consider myself informed. I have a sales pitch, skewed math, and a pronounced "don't ask too many questions" party line. In my experience those strongly suggest a lack of knowledge.

Roger, look around at the world. Seriously, would extinction really be that bad a thing? For us, sure. For everything else, hell no.

I don't know where you are, but my country is in lockdown, businesses are failing, the bills are piling up, and people are going stir crazy. There's 100,000 people in hospital with Covid, and delayed treatments are upward of one million. Public spending and borrowing are through the roof while revenues are on the floor. And you ask - what do I mean by patriotic? You don't think this is a time when we all need to be pulling in the same direction?

For what it's worth, I have some of the same reservations with regard to the vaccine. I'd like to know more about the efficacy of the vaccine - particularly with regard to mutant strains. I'd like to know how long protection lasts. There's a lot I'd like to know, but the vaccine was created and approved in 10 months, because of the sheer scale and immediacy of the crisis. It isn't a sales pitch. It's a cry for help.

Something about your earlier post bothers me; particularly if now you're claiming:

I am supposed to sell the public health pitch to my patients so it is more than slightly helpful if I believe it at all. — Book273

A medic would certainly be aware that masks stop virus getting out, as much as they stop it getting in. They stop you spraying your germs everywhere with every exhalation of breath, every word and laugh, to say nothing of coughs and sneezes. Your earlier post is clearly, utterly unconcerned with masks stopping you infecting others. Stop lying and just accept the advice of actual medical professionals.

Mostly because they don't actually KNOW. At least, not by an acceptable standard. I cannot use their level of so called knowledge in my practice or I would lose my license. I need to actually KNOW what I am doing, WHY I am doing it, What I expect to change by doing it, What side effects I expect to see, and what side effects are enough of a concern to stop the treatment. The guidance here is filled with a lot of "should help..." "might reduce..." "feel strongly..." and my personal favorite "think how bad it would have been..." None of those suggest knowledge. All of them suggest...uncertainty. I cannot practice with uncertainty.

For example: if John arrives in the ER with chest pain, I will ask him if he is allergic to ASA. If he isn't he will get either 160mg chewable or 320mg chewable (depends on the school of thought of the ER doctor treating him, or the protocol of the facility, regardless he gets ASA unless he is allergic or has a bleeding ulcer problem, or is already on anticoagulants). Then he gets an IV, preferably an 18 gauge with Normal Saline running, in case he needs more advanced cardiac meds (atropine, amiodarone, epinephrine, etc) We will do an ECG, to see what part of the heart is affected by the potential blood clot, and order a bunch of blood tests to confirm cardiac muscle involvement. Specifically looking for elevated troponin levels, which if present confirm cardiac damage. We will look at chemistry, to see if his calcium, sodium or potassium are off, and will adjust those according to what we find. IF his troponin is elevated we will do another troponin 6 hours later, rising levels means more damage, dropping levels means the peak of the event is over. SO he gets ASA, which is an antiplatelet aggregate, meaning any clot won't get bigger. IF there is no clot (angina, or panic attack, etc) then the ASA we gave him will do no damage. If he has a clot, confirmed via ecg changes, elevated troponin, etc, then we either give Tenecteplase IV ( highend clot buster) based on his weight, or even better, if we have access to a Cath lab, we send him for an angiogram and likely angioplasty (they open the affected artery with a balloon). The point here is this, the initial intervention of ASA, unless contra indicated, WILL help with a blood clot in the heart. IF there is no clot, the ASA will do no harm. We do not open with the Tenecteplase, because if there is no clot to breakup John has a much higher chance of having a hemorrhagic stroke now that we gave him the clotbuster. We don't open with an angiogram/angioplasty until we KNOW it is needed. At no point in this situation do I give John anything based on my "feeling strongly that it might help" "should help" "might reduce" or any of that uncertain crap. I need to own my practice, so I research the shit out of what I may encounter and might be required to do. So that when my patient asks what to expect, I KNOW the answer, and the statistics about likely outcomes. No part of my practice is based on guess work and someone else's research.


Yes the vaccine might help, it probably will. It might also cause an autoimmune disease in five years or less, or more. It might be 97% effective against all coronavirus diseases for the life of those vaccinated. Great! It might also result in a hyperinflammatory response to the next coronavirus they are exposed to and kill them in under 3 days. I do not know any of those answers. Neither do the manufacturers frankly. There is no data on the vaccine older than six months. Everything else is theory, and theory sometimes bites you in the ass, Hard. I consider this a global experiment, longitudinal study yet to come. I can not ask my patients to accept a vaccine that I will not take and that I know nothing about, other than that the trials were rushed, it has been approved under "emergency situation", not regular approval, and that, two days before it was available my government suddenly passed a "vaccine compensation" bill to compensate anyone who suffered as a result of vaccine administration. Again, not reassuring stuff.

That's fairly convincing proof you are a medic of some sort. I can't find it anywhere on the web - so possibly not just plagiarised. I apologise and withdraw my comment. You do realise you're going against the majority of medical opinion, and the government advice? Why are you doing that?

No worries, I piss a lot of people off by asking questions. I appreciate your comment withdrawal. I am going against the majority of the voiced medical opinion and government position, to be sure.

I would suggest that, at least where I work, and among my colleagues at different hospitals, my opinion is the majority, however, if we speak up publicly, we will lose our jobs. I have never been in this position before. My licensing body now requires, as part of continued licensure, that I promote the current public health position. Prior to Covid I was to support and promote what was best practice and best for my patients, not a political position. This is a dramatic change and I am in no way supportive of it. I am voicing, not that the government is absolutely wrong, but that there is no data to support the claims they are making, and I believe that lying to your patient population, be it one patient, or one billion, is ethically wrong. The reality of it is that, most likely the vaccine will help, but since I have no idea about the long term effects of having had it, and I do know (as much as anyone else) that the vast majority of Covid cases will be fine, I find it very unethical to push something I am unsure of, have no data available to me, and am being told not to ask questions about.

Much of what I am asked to do for "covid prevention" at work is more about the appearance of doing something, not about the efficacy of the intervention. Again, unethical. So which is more ethical? Keep working, do the best I can for the patient in front of me, provide the best information I can at the time, knowing that, eventually I could get fired for maintaining the level of professionalism and ethics I had been trained to maintain and doing the best I can for my patients? Or walk away, because my employer is unethical and that I should not be working for them, while knowing that the patients won't know the difference, they won't question what is coming down from above?

I welcome my patients' doing their own research and asking me questions, it means they are involved in their care. Awesome! It also keeps me on my toes, and having to stay on my game, which is great too. Otherwise I might get complacent, which is one step closer to doing what I am told, rather than doing it right.

I see your dilemma but if all you have is uncertainty, would you not weigh that against the public health implications - of voicing those concerns, and perhaps undermining a vaccination program that you admit, will probably work?

I mean, they produce vaccines for specific strains of flu every year - and the reason they were able to turn this around in under a year, is that they plugged this virus into that infrastructure.

Exactly a hundred years ago - somewhere between 50 and 100 million people died of flu. How do you weigh that scale of threat against the possibility of autoimmune disease or hyperinflammatory response - and err against vaccination? I just don't understand your logic.

The coronavirus vaccine is nothing like the flu vaccine. If it were I would have no issue with it. The previous attempt to make a corona virus vaccine, 2012, ended with a series of vaccines (3 to be specific) that appeared to create protection initially, however, 2 months after vaccine administration the test subjects (mice and monkeys) were exposed to sars covid 1 (original SARS virus) The control group (no vaccine given) has less initial immune response, day 1, however by the end of day two the control group was fairing better than any of the vaccinated groups. At which point, being an experiment, all subjects were killed and studied to see what was happening at the cellular level. The control group had infected (inflamed) lung tissue. The vaccinated groups had a greater degree of lung inflammation, smaller airways, more fluid, and area of necrosis (dead/rotting tissue) within the lungs and bronchi. The end result of the experiment was the finding that all three vaccines initially presented as being protective, however greatly increased the inflammatory response within the test subjects leading to substantially increased morbidity and mortality in all test subjects. The vaccines were deemed to be a failure and it was recommended to never pursue a coronavirus vaccine in humans. Human trials were never done. The scientists felt that having the vaccine setup the host to have an early hyperimmune response, initially thought to be a good thing, lead to the excessive and lethal response within the lungs. Interestingly, the subjects that had been exposed to the virus previously and survived had very little immune response to the second exposure and were essentially unaffected by the secondary exposure, having had a natural immunity.

Yes, I am nervous about the vaccine. Very much so.

Also, in early January (or late December, I can not recall the date) there was an article on CBC (Canadian news eh) about a long term care home in Montreal and the vaccine up take at the care home. The article claimed that 95% of the elderly residents had been vaccinated at that time and that 32% of the staff "were open" to being vaccinated. Meaning 68% of the healthcare staff gave a hard "NO". when asked if they would get the vaccine. That is a fairly accurate representation I believe. Some people where I work want it, some adamantly refuse to consider it, most say "Ask me again in ten years when we know more about the response."

My father got his first dose 2 weeks ago and gets his second dose on the 18th. He is excited about it. I am hoping it doesn't kill him in a few months when the spring wave arrives, but really, I have no idea.

There seems to be some truth to your concerns, but - I assume you're talking about the work of Chien-Te Tseng, Elena Sbrana, and Naoko Iwata - which was a VLP vaccine (virus like particles) whereas, the vaccine developed by Oxford AstraZeneca is an adenoviral vaccine.

The former was a synthetic, constructed molecule, whereas, the latter is a disease that causes the common cold in chimps, hollowed out and used as a vehicle.

In short, you are comparing apples and oranges. Your argument may be taken to indicate a general concern about the dangers of drug development, but is not specific to this vaccine. It's a completely different approach.

my main point of concern is that the sales pitch of the new vaccines is very nearly what we use to describe an autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease: your immune system sees something that your body produces as an "other" and begins to attack it, resulting in systemic inflammation and pain, etc.

Vaccine: The mRNA goes into your cell, which produces a spike that your body recognizes as an "other" and mounts an immune response to it, thereby protecting you from the vaccine when/if it shows up.

So both ways, your body produces something, which is recognized as an "other" and triggers an immune response...only one is bad for you, and potentially life long and life altering or ending, and the other is, we don't know how long for, but good for you, and life saving. Seems a little...screwy.

I just want data. Real data that I can interpret myself. The sales pitch is too much like "it works because it's good for you and it's good for you because it works!" There isn't much behind it.

Good discussion, but we are way off topic eh!

I'm learning, slowly, that imagining you can change someone's mind only leads to frustration. You've presented your arguments, and it seems like you were well prepared to do so. I was not. Yet I've given a counter argument, I hope proves more convincing to people - because I want my country and the world to get past this and move on as soon as possible.

Now you're just describing how vaccines work, and saying it 'seems a little screwy' I'm at a loss. The first vaccine, developed by Edward Jenner used cowpox to protect against smallpox. That's how vaccines work. They infect you with something relatively harmless to evoke an immune response that protects against infection by something much more deadly.

Your complaint about masks was only concerned with your own health, your argument about vaccines is irrelevant to the one being proscribed, and your medical ethics with regard to public health are dubious at best. I hope I've managed to show this.

Your wish for real data you can interpret yourself is a vain hope, given the urgency of the situation. I'm sure it will come in time, but you don't seem to have any appreciation of how damaging this situation is in so many other ways. I don't know why you're expressing your concerns here, or at all, to be honest. What's the alternative? All walk around with no masks and no vaccines and let 100 million plus people die - because you want data you can interpret for yourself? You're crazy!

My disagreeing with the current narrative will have no difference on the number of people that die. ZERO impact. if the vaccine works, great. If it doesn't but has no other issues, just is ineffective, fair enough. However, if it works, but somehow has other far reaching issues that we, at this time don't know about, that could end up being much worse. Everyone thought thalidomide was the best thing ever, until kids were born missing limbs, then, not so great. I am thinking people would have rather waited on that medication a little longer, maybe get better information to make a decision from.

The urgency of the situation is relative. Give the current number of Covid infected people Ebola. That is an urgent situation. Covid...not so much. It is increasing normal death rates by about 7%. It's an increase, but not worth all fuss.

The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Masking and social distancing of our recently vaccinated population is dangerously counter productive. It prevents achieving herd immunity, thereby allowing the virus to continue to grow and mutate further, thereby killing more and more people.

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus. No reputable scientist or medical expert disagrees. Social distancing does not stop this virus, nor does it actually slow it down any more than standing in the shade actually slows down the sun's UV rays. Social distancing only slows down the 'rate of infection', much like standing in the shade only slows down the 'rate of sunburns'. The science (empirical evidence) is very clear on this point, for after a year of masking and social distancing measures, the virus has not slowed at all, it has only grown and mutated into a bigger beast killing more people this year than it did last year.

Continued social distancing means continued virus growth and mutation, meaning more deaths next year than this year, and more deaths the following year than next year. Again, if we wish to stop this virus, then herd immunity, and not social distancing, is our ONLY solution. In this case, preventing our only solution only creates a bigger problem (many more deaths).

Herd immunity is achieved by saturating a given population of people (a "herd") with immune people. Immune people are those that have been vaccinated and/or those previous infected (and now have antibodies). Herd immunity works because immune people "break vectors"; they act as physical barriers to the virus spread, thereby protecting nearby vulnerable people. When a virus encounters an immune person, the virus is essentially stopped and removed from the environment (via the immune system of said immune person), which thereby prevents the virus from further transmission. Every virus that encounters (and dies within) an immune person is one less that can infect a vulnerable person.

Vaccination, by itself, cannot give us herd immunity. If immune people are kept away from the herd, then there can be no herd immunity protection. If we continue to mask and social distance our recently vaccinated people, then we have accomplished nothing, except to let the virus continue to grow and mutate into even more variants, some of which the previous vaccination will not protect against.

Keeping the "stoppers" of the virus from stopping the virus is a non-effective means of stopping the virus. Masking our vaccinated people only kills more people.