https://reason.com/2021/08/11/are-mask-requirements-in-schools-necessary-to-control-covid-19/

 

Dive in and have fun with this one.

New study in Sweden shows that antibodies remain effective after one year for over 80% of all patients (others may still have the T cell protection).  The protection was observed as superior to the vaccines and protects against COVID variants including delta though not quite as good for the Brazilian and South African variants.  The study also shows that one jab of Pfizer helped as a booster and that two jabs was completely unnecessary for those who had the antibodies.

 

Nice with a little bit of positive news on this topic.  Let's see if this study holds as it is not peer reviewed yet.  Link to preprint publication

 

Correction: There were actually two studies pointed to in the article I read today.  The 2nd study, here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396421003169   is where the topic of protection from natural antibodies vs. a fully vaccinated approach is analyzed.  I missed this one.

 

 

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

Not according to our flat earth guy in here.

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

New study in Sweden shows that antibodies remain effective after one year for over 80% of all patients (others may still have the T cell protection).  The protection was observed as superior to the vaccines and protects against COVID variants including delta though not quite as good for the Brazilian and South African variants.  The study also shows that one jab of Pfizer helped as a booster and that two jabs was completely unnecessary for those who had the antibodies.

 

Nice with a little bit of positive news on this topic.  Let's see if this study holds as it is not peer reviewed yet.  Link to preprint publication

 

Any correlating factors among those for whom the antibodies reduced effectiveness? Age, weight, etc?

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Any correlating factors among those for whom the antibodies reduced effectiveness? Age, weight, etc?

Honestly I haven't dug into the publication yet so I don't know.  Plus it isn't peer reviewed.  We can hope though that it provides something positive that holds.

21 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Honestly I haven't dug into the publication yet so I don't know.  Plus it isn't peer reviewed.  We can hope though that it provides something positive that holds.

Looks like a very small sample size unfortunately. Too small for having sufficient diversity of test subjects in enough numbers to be reliable for separating out other factors.

20 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Looks like a very small sample size unfortunately. Too small for having sufficient diversity of test subjects in enough numbers to be reliable for separating out other factors.

Too bad

5 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

New study in Sweden shows that antibodies remain effective after one year for over 80% of all patients (others may still have the T cell protection).  The protection was observed as superior to the vaccines and protects against COVID variants including delta though not quite as good for the Brazilian and South African variants.  The study also shows that one jab of Pfizer helped as a booster and that two jabs was completely unnecessary for those who had the antibodies.

 

Nice with a little bit of positive news on this topic.  Let's see if this study holds as it is not peer reviewed yet.  Link to preprint publication

 

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. The study you posted evaluated antibody titers of post-infection follow ups at 12 months, but they didn't do the same for vaccine recipients (since they obviously can't yet). Actually, the results from one month follow-ups show very similar levels of protection between natural and vaccine induced immunity against wild-type, alpha, and delta. I'm not seeing anywhere that they concluded natural immunity was superior to vaccine induced immunity.

7 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

https://reason.com/2021/08/11/are-mask-requirements-in-schools-necessary-to-control-covid-19/

 

Dive in and have fun with this one.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. 
 

I know that articles frequently refer to the low percentage of severe cases and high percentage of asymptomatic cases in kids, and I’ve seen many references to medical conditions like asthma making kids higher risk,  but I haven’t seen any information or data on what it really means for kids to be higher risk or what the risk of severe illness or long COVID is for those kids with asthma. Are you aware of any studies or data looking at that piece of the puzzle because, to me, that is a significant piece of the puzzle when looking at whether or not we should be requiring universal masking in schools and on school buses. 

37 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. 
 

I know that articles frequently refer to the low percentage of severe cases and high percentage of asymptomatic cases in kids, and I’ve seen many references to medical conditions like asthma making kids higher risk,  but I haven’t seen any information or data on what it really means for kids to be higher risk or what the risk of severe illness or long COVID is for those kids with asthma. Are you aware of any studies or data looking at that piece of the puzzle because, to me, that is a significant piece of the puzzle when looking at whether or not we should be requiring universal masking in schools and on school buses. 

No, I haven't seen anything beyond conjecture.  Kind of hard to have anything with regard to long term COVID since the data is simply non existent or at best severely lacking.

I did see a recent study (again, not peer reviewed) that asserted that new treatment programs would eliminate the vast majority of long term COVID after six months.  The number they gave was 95%.  Of course not proof of any kind.

The bottom line is there is a lot we just don't know and won't for some time.

10 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

https://reason.com/2021/08/11/are-mask-requirements-in-schools-necessary-to-control-covid-19/

 

Dive in and have fun with this one.

The author is jumping through hoops to try and make some case that masks "may not help".

In 2020-2021 NC had a mask mandate. There were no mentioned outbreaks, and I couldn't find any. The authors if the study cited in the article indicate that they attribute some of the low transmission of Covid in schools to mask. The author of the article says "but there was no control group" - fair enough but then goes on to note multiple outbreaks already this year in NC schools without mask mandates. 

He then goes on to state:

 

These studies show that mask mandates are consistent with low rates of COVID-19 transmission. But contrary to what the CDC implies, they do not show that mask mandates are necessary to keep infection rates low, which would require comparing outcomes in otherwise similar schools with and without mandates.

In December, based on data from Georgia, the CDC reported that "COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks," which was similar to the difference associated with "improved ventilation." But while the incidence of infection was 21 percent lower in schools that also required students to wear masks, that difference was not statistically significant.

 

He basically is citing lots of circumstantial and statistical evidence supporting the notion that mask mandates have reduced infection rates, then waves it all away under a "but we can't be sure it's masks" statement then makes some argument about since masks are uncomfortable for some students the benefits may not outweigh the costs.

Terrible argument.

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

He basically is citing lots of circumstantial and statistical evidence supporting the notion that mask mandates have reduced infection rates, then waves it all away under a "but we can't be sure it's masks" statement then makes some argument about since masks are uncomfortable for some students the benefits may not outweigh the costs.

Yeah, their argument for "cost" is pretty weak.  I've seen some other opinion pieces point to more tangible stuff but of course with no underlying evidence.

In any case, the entire context of what we are willing to accept in terms of "proof" is changed with COVID given the timelines we face.  That's just the nature of the situation and more or less the point of the article.  Doesn't make it wrong but we can and should acknowledge it at least when the discussion is focused on the science (though we need to be careful with the comms that is more aimed at the general populous).  We don't really know yet exactly what the data will show in the end of the day.  We have good ideas and we certainly lean into those and try to do the safer thing and mostly we will be right.

It's all about cost and benefit.

Near as we can tell there is significant circumstantial evidence that masks measurably reduce spread. There is no evidence of negative consequences at least medically. They're cheap and available. 

Doesn't seem like a big deal, unless you want to pretend you're Mel Gibson from The Patriot strutting into Dollar General without a mask.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It's all about cost and benefit.

Near as we can tell there is significant circumstantial evidence that masks measurably reduce spread. There is no evidence of negative consequences at least medically. They're cheap and available. 

Doesn't seem like a big deal, unless you want to pretend you're Mel Gibson from The Patriot strutting into Dollar General without a mask.

I'm not anti mask, never have been.  To me it has always been a question of what tools fit the situation.  I've worn masks in plenty of situations over the last 15 months.

Cost/benefit with risk levels assessed, 100% agree.  Both of those can include items that are "soft" though.  There are "soft" benefits for masking, e.g. the feeling of contributing, the feeling of protection, etc. regardless of the actual level of benefit.  The same will be true on the cost side where there are also going to be "soft" costs, e.g. discomfort, the feeling some may have of feeling forced to do something they don't want to do, etc. and that's regardless of whether those are reasonable or not.

 

btw - Shouldn't we have some sort of minimum standard for masks when we have mask mandates in place?  I'm thinking both quality and also the way in which they are worn.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm not anti mask, never have been.  To me it has always been a question of what tools fit the situation.  I've worn masks in plenty of situations over the last 15 months.

Cost/benefit with risk levels assessed, 100% agree.  Both of those can include items that are "soft" though.  There are "soft" benefits for masking, e.g. the feeling of contributing, the feeling of protection, etc. regardless of the actual level of benefit.  The same will be true on the cost side where there are also going to be "soft" costs, e.g. discomfort, the feeling some may have of feeling forced to do something they don't want to do, etc. and that's regardless of whether those are reasonable or not.

 

btw - Shouldn't we have some sort of minimum standard for masks when we have mask mandates in place?  I'm thinking both quality and also the way in which they are worn.

 

 

 

No because then they know less people will wear them because the ones that really work and are not theatre are also not comfortable to wear for long periods of time

10 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

No because then they know less people will wear them because the ones that really work and are not theatre are also not comfortable to wear for long periods of time

So then just a thin bandana western bad guy style is fine?  and pulling it down below the nose is also ok?

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So then just a thin bandana western bad guy style is fine?  and pulling it down below the nose is also ok?

Did you not read what I said? compliance would be even less if the masks that work are recomended or mandated, i have said many times those masks are not helping and the way many people wear them, if N95 was mandated you would see less people complying

1 minute ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Did you not read what I said? compliance would be even less if the masks that work are recomended or mandated

I'm suggesting a minimum standard.  Doesn't have to be the ones that are uncomfortable.

Maybe they should just be passed out to students in schools that mandate.  Take all the guess work out of it.

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm suggesting a minimum standard.  Doesn't have to be the ones that are uncomfortable.

Maybe they should just be passed out to students in schools that mandate.  Take all the guess work out of it.

No because the minimum standard for what actually works is going to be  more than the cloth masks and there will be less acceptance and more fights so they choose for mask theatre instead of really doing what helps which is social distancing and vaccine mandates but children can not get vaccines yet and there is no appetite for social distancing anymore. Vaccine mandates should come for schools when the vaccine is approved

Just now, Joe Shades 73 said:

No because the minimum standard for what actually works is going to more than the cloth masks and there will be less acceptance and more fights so they choose for mask theatre instead of really doing what helps which is social distancing and vaccine mandates but children can not get vaccines yet and there is no appetite for social distancing anymore

Well I'm assuming the distancing is still going to be in place.  Without that the effectiveness of the masks goes way way down especially if there isn't some minimum standard applied.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Well I'm assuming the distancing is still going to be in place.  Without that the effectiveness of the masks goes way way down especially if there isn't some minimum standard applied.

There is no real distancing, kids are going to get near each other and talk to each other and they are not going to change the mask type recommendation because they know it is asking for more problems. The bottom line is the vaccine needs to be approved for children. That is the only answer

7 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

There is no real distancing, kids are going to get near each other and talk to each other and they are not going to change the mask type recommendation because they know it is asking for more problems. The bottom line is the vaccine needs to be approved for children. That is the only answer

It will eventually. Likely to need further vaccines for variants though and those take time to develop. We need a strategy and policies that can last a few years. A level of risk has to be part of the solution. 

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

It will eventually. Likely to need further vaccines for variants though and those take time to develop. We need a strategy and policies that can last a few years. A level of risk has to be part of the solution. 

That so far is false, and likely if any are needed the current vaccines can be adjusted which does not take much time. The long term strategy will be get the vaccine and live your life or don't get the vaccine and get shunned from society and possibly die