@Pat I'm holding a very cautious hope that omicron is less likely to put you in hospital than the previous variants. If that's the case, we want omicron to beat delta.
Yes, if Omicron induces strong immunity to the previous variants and is much less lethal and less virulent, then it would be a benefit to have it spread through the unvaxed population. However, the article said that 15 of the guy's friends all got sick, so it sounds like it's still fairly virulent because previous variants had significant non-symptomatic spread.
We just got to wait to see how bad it is as the numbers come in.
>"So from this it is really difficult to draw any actual conclusions. without more information."
With regard to the virulence of Omicron, no, we don't really know yet.
However, it is likely that it spread beyond the group of 30, because the NYT article said that a Connecticut man tested positive for the Omicron variant after one of his relatives returned from the conference. Since that is Connecticut's first case of Omicron, the man likely caught it from his relative who attended the conference, indicating that it spread beyond those 30 people in that one group.
๐ณ๐ฑ
There has never been a remotely convincing study to show those numbers hold true in the wild.
Only time I woud expect masks to work are under highly controlled settings, even the data in those settings is severely lacking however.
I've explained my logic before, quite simply, masks encourage you to touch your face more and they tend to be used beyond just a few hours (the limit in a clinical setting) and become vectors themselves as well.
I agree that masks don't work very well at stopping the spread of the virus. That's why we need to wear respirators instead. I've cited the studies here before on that.
But respirators alone aren't 100% because, as you say, some people don't use them correctly. So we need to use the triad -- respirators, vaccines, and testing -- to eliminate the virus. The respirator component of that triad includes intensive public education on the use of them as well as widespread distribution of the devices.
Even respirators I feel somewhat confident drastically **increase** the spread of the virus when used by the general public for the same reasons a mask would.
See this reply for reasons why:
@freemo @Pat
A collection of studies about the effects of face masks&respirators can be found here
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
Esp. respirators are difficult to wear correctly, they need to fit precisely to protect the wearer. That's why fi health workers get to test several types, get an how-to and are eligible to breaks etc.
The average John Doe buys one, wears it incorrectly (glasses are fogging/over facial hair/gaps) and goes jogging ๐คฆ
@zleap @trinsec
The problem with most mask studies is they arent really designed to test real world effects well. They can show under ideal conditions they block transmission, and they do, but fail to factor in the points i mentioned or to test under real world conditions.
What real world tests we do have tend to rely on correlation and cause post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and dont really engage in well designed granger causality tests.
@freemo @Pat
Even if I didn't understand your last paragraph I believe you. But correlations strongly suggest that fi mandatory respirators didn't protect any more than masks (see numbers from Bavaria). Since I read at that time many complains about fogging glasses I think I know why. And since our Stiftung Warentest rated several respirator types as unsatisfactory due to obstructing breathing many wear them incorrectly or under their nose. ๐คท
@zleap @trinsec
bonifartius ๐ผ๐
The issue in my mind is not if masks work when used with the rigour of a surgeon.. they do. My issue is that the general ublic will not and cant be expected to use that rigour. The way the general public is expected to use masks is likely to produce a very different outcome than the ideal, so much so I strongly suspect it causes more harm than good.
@freemo
mpg tested for badly fitted masks:
> If both the infected and the non-infected person wear well-fitting FFP2 masks, the maximum risk of infection after 20 minutes is hardly more than one per thousand, even at the shortest distance. If their masks fit poorly, the probability of infection increases to about four percent. If both wear well-fitting medical masks, the virus is likely to be transmitted within 20 minutes with a maximum probability of ten percent. The study also confirms the intuitive assumption that for effective protection against infection, in particular the infected person should wear a mask that filters as well as possible and fits tightly to the face.
so, still only 4% in that study. from what i understand, the deflection of the cone of air exhaled already helps.
that people have to still use their brains is a given, as is that no measure helps 100%
