Why on Earth would anyone go to a movie theater in the middle of a pandemic?????
There is no interaction between the people other than that they are all breathing the same air.
If there is anything that could be done online just as well as in person, it's watching a damn movie!
#COVID #COVID19 #vax #vaccine #mask #masks #movie #movies #social #distance #remote
🇳🇱
@Pat I go to movie theaters mostly just for the popcorn to be honest. That said I havent went to one during the pandemic. I probably would though now that we moved onto the delta variant and deaths have been consistently reasonable even during infection spikes. I'm kinda over covid as a result and just pretend it doesnt even exist at this point. Back before Delta though no way would I have went to a theater.
(we posted simultaneously)
The delta variant is more contagious. Now is not a good time to be around a bunch of other people.
The main difference is that the media are not talking about the thousands of people who are dying every day. They want people to go out and spend money and burn gas, even if it kills thousands of more people.
I thought mankind was making progress, but this is reprehensible.
@Pat recent data is suggesting delta isnt more contagious, it is just that the vaccine has no effect on preventing its spread. So it appears more contagious since people are vaccinated. The data is new like everything covid so we cant say for certain either way, but this seems to be the case.
That said even if it is mroe contagious, the death toll even when cases spike has been minimal. As such I'm not really worried about it spreading.
Here in the US it's terrible. It's over a thousand people a day for a very long time. It was over 3000/day a few weeks back. All preventable.
This week, over 10,000 people were buried by their loved ones.
I'm unaware of that recent research on delta. The R0 for delta has been ~150% of alpha, which has been ~150% of the original. But it's entirely possible that the difference is due to behavior and public policy.
@Pat In the USA before delta the morbidity rate was well over 4x higher than it is now with delta. Yes a lot of people are still dying sadly, but it is far less lethal than the old variant even in the USA. It is still more lethal than the flu but the margin is much closer as a result, the new variant is getting pretty close to flu levels of morbidity.
Attached is an example from the USA, specifically massachusits. As you can see the mortality during Delta has gone down to nearly 0, its just not a very lethal virus anymore.
That said I am more than happy to put it behind us and not take social measures anymore given where its at.
All that said its been almost 2 years now, even if the virus was just as deadly as it was we cant remain in lock down forever. A new vaccine is not even close to being ready and we are looking at it being well over a year away if one ever comes that fights delta at all... Its time to be done with it, and accept the deaths until we can cure it. Lock down nursing homes, wear a mask around the elderly, but other its time to go back to normal IMO and has been that time for a while.
You may be done with covid, but covid is not done with us. The virus continues to kill massive numbers of people and many times that amount are left with chronic illness. Millions of people can no longer work because they are dead or disabled from the virus. Millions more are justifiably afraid to go back to work. And millions more are so disgusted with the way that the politician have handled this that they've joined the general strike.
You may be done with it, but it's not done with you.
@Pat It may not be done with me, but living in fear for 2 years is my limit. I am willing to accept the very real death toll if that means going back to a normal life. People living the way we have for 2 years extended into the future forever is not a solution or acceptable, the deaths are preferable.
Hiding your head in the sand isn't going to fix it.
@Pat Its not holding my head in the sand. Its recognizing there are no solutions on the table, zero. The vaccine doesnt work, you can wear masks till you are blue int he face and covid will immediately spike the second we stop wearing masks. There is no solution now nor is there any solution even on the horizon in development for the next year.
I am recognizing reality, COVID is here to say. The choice is live the rest of our lives in fear, in lock down, and wearing masks everywhere we go out of fear, or accepting its just one more among thousands of diseases that might kill us and get on with our lives. I plan to get on with my life.
> That strategy will never get us back to normal. The country and the economy could never handle the drag of that many deaths and disabilities.
No vaccine on the market right now has any effect on the viral load of delta variant, and thus does nothing to reduce the spread of the virus. Therefore **nothing** will make covid go away right now. You will **never** get back to normal if you are waiting for covid to go away and certainly not if you think wearing masks is going to solve it. The best you could hope for is covid incidence goes down, to some arbitrary level and the moment masks stop getting worn it goes right back to where it is.
COVID isnt going away, if that is the measure for going back to normal then might as well just give up entierly.
That said since the morbidity of delta is so low even when it is spreading rapidly I think your premise is wrong. Society could handle COVID spreading freely just fine. Yes there will be deaths just like with many diseases, but delta is entierly manageable as we have already seen from the chart I have shown.
>Its not holding my head in the sand. Its recognizing there are no solutions on the table, zero.
I just gave you a viable solution. Along with the vaccines, which do mitigate infection, respirators could stop the pandemic. Stop it. Completely.
A properly worn respirator completely stops the virus -- not just delta, but all current and future variants of the virus. And we don't need 100% of people wearing them, just about 60-65%, along with the current vax level would end this now.
> I just gave you a viable solution. Along with the vaccines, which do mitigate infection, respirators could stop the pandemic. Stop it. Completely.
This is false. Recent studies, the best studies we have, show vaccine has no effect on the viral load of delta. so current data suggests the vaccines have no effect anymore on the spread.
Second resperators will not and never can stop it completely. It can at best reduce the incidence of the virus temporarily while we wear them and comply. Since vaccines do not slow its spread the second people stop wearing masks if there is even one remaining case then it spreads and starts all over again.
So no despite the effectiveness of respirators they can not and will not solve the problem. They only work for as long as they are worn, so they only solve the problem if we decide to wear respirators for the rest of our life, which I wont do.
You might have a chance of solving it if we had a new vaccine that was effective agaisnt delta **and** people wore respirators. But that is likely to never happen. The first vaccine failed for all the reasons I said it would before a vaccine even existed, and so will any new vaccines that use the same approach.
Despite your optimism what you offer is not a solution, and there is no solution that exists or that is in development.
@Pat Attached is the data if your curious. As you can see the vaccine significantly reduced viral load int he original COVID as the picture shows. But in the delta variant vaccines have no effect on viral load. In fact, being vaccinated causes a marginal **increase** in viral load against delta.
So yea, the science that has come out in recent weeks now that delta is 98% prevalence shows that the vaccine has absolutely no effect on the spread of the disease.
Here's a study done on the effect of respirators, without ANY vaccine at all. The conclusion, "...the epidemic could be eliminated in the USA if at least 40% of the population consistently wore respirators in public."
The study was done by Harvard Medical, along with other schools, published by the Royal Society (who literally invented peer review).
Respirators stop the virus. Once the virus is eliminated in a region, those who feel comfortable can go without wearing them, while the population is constantly tested. If the virus pops up again, then we do an "air raid" and everybody puts on their respirators for a week or so until it's safe again. We could do this for a long time, certainly long enough to refine a better vax and other prophylaxis.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210699
It's certainly worth it to save thousands of lives.
@Pat I dont agree. I wont wear a resperator for the rest of my life to save thousands of lives. Living in fear to that extent is not a life worth living for me. Especially considering how extremely uncomfortable I find respirators to be.
> Here's a study done on the effect of respirators, without ANY vaccine at all. The conclusion, "...the epidemic could be eliminated in the USA if at least 40% of the population consistently wore respirators in public."
You are missing the point. I never disputed the fact that respirators work **while everyone is wearing them**. I conceded that fact.
What respirators dont do is eliminate the virus completely. If even a single case of the virus remains (and it will no matter how effective respirators are) then as I already said the moment everyone stops wearing respirators the virus goes right back to where it was.
Vaccines are different because you cant just stop being vaccinated. Once herd immunity is reached everyone stays vaccinated so even the rare fewcases of the virus that linger will not spread again for at least a generation.
Long story short respirators even when effective can not and do not solve the problem when there is no effective vaccine availible. As I said all resperators do suppress the problem for as long as they are worn. So its not a solution if you have to keep wearing them for the rest of your life.
I have only really looked at the effectiveness of the vaccines available to me WRT delta variant, and none of them are effective to any degree on viral load. If novavax is somehow the exception then id be all for it if it was available.
@freemo @icedquinn
>What respirators dont do is eliminate the virus completely. If even a single case of the virus remains (and it will no matter how effective respirators are) then as I already said the moment everyone stops wearing respirators the virus goes right back to where it was.
Respirator DO eliminate the virus. (eliminate, not exterminate or make extinct) Once the virus is eliminated in a region, then there are only sporadic cases from people who travel to the area. Other countries has done this. It called the elimination strategy and it works. It works much better than what the US has tried. Those countries can go a long time with very few cases, while they continue with test and trace. If an outbreak crops up, they just put the respirators back on. Those who don't want to wear a respirator don't have to, they just take a chance on getting the virus and don't get invited to a lot of parties.
Nothing about what you said is true. You can not completely eliminate a virus from a region using respirators no matter how effective the respirators are. The only way the model works out where respirators would eliminate it from an area is if you have almost everyone wearing 24/7 (including in their own homes, while they sleep, etc), if people never touch their face, and if they do this over the course of years. None of which is practical.
The simple fact is respirators dont (and we have known this for a long time) stop virual outbreaks. They temporarily slow it, but you do not eliminate it with respirators.
The idea "if an outbreak happens they put the respirators back on"... yea thats the problem. All youll see is people wearing respirators for the rest of their lives where maybe every few months you might get a break and restrictation relax for a week or two until the outbreak resurges due to lack of respirators.
Like I said I am not living the rest of my life wearing respirators all the time out of fear of a virus. I was ok with at first, im over it.
I am also perfectly ok not getting invited to parties. I have started hosting my own parties again, and my parties are more fun and dont require masks :)
@freemo @icedquinn
>considering how extremely uncomfortable I find respirators to be.
You should try different models. I found some of the filtering facepiece respirators have an airflow that tickles my nose, but others don't. The elastomeric respirators are actually more comfortable than than those white "dome" types.
People wear bras and ties (which are much more uncomfortable than respirators) and they wear them for much more trivial reasons than to save thousands of lives. And they wear them for their whole lives.
"Eliminate" is a term of art in epidemiology which means that there is not continuous community spread of a disease. Measles is eliminated but there are still outbreaks occasionally. Covid was eliminated in Australia, Germany, Austria. Now Austria, after many months, is having another upsurge, so they'll wear the respirators again for a while. Same thing happened in Australia.
In Asia after SARS-1, most people just continued to wear masks even after the pandemic was over. It's not a big deal, really. And you don't need to have 100% of people wearing them. Just 60-65% is enough.
If you don't want to wear a respirator, that's fine, but why do you want to encourage others not to wear them. How does it hurt you if everyone else is wearing a respirator if they want to?
It isnt the physical presence of something rubbing on me that makes it extremely unpleasant. It is the uncomfortable feeling of highly humid air along with the very noticeable CO2 buildup in the air. I could never even wear the cold-weather face mask intended to keep you warm for the same reason.
Regardless of what you wish to call "eliminate" the fact of the matter is measles never comes back en-mass because we are vaccinated. We have no vaccinations that reduce the spread of delta covid so it isnt comparable. The fact that Austria and Germany "eliminated it" and now its back only proves my point, masks temporarily reduce the infection and without effective vaccines the virus will **always** resurge once mask restrictions are removed.
Dice words however you wish the fact is im not going the rest of my life wearing masks on and off. I intend to behave as COVID isnt going to dominate my life and i wont live in fear. I dont live in fear of the flu, or of cancer, or anything else and I wont live in fear of COVID. I'm ok with the risk, i wont change my life anymore.
>It is the uncomfortable feeling of highly humid air along with the very noticeable CO2 buildup in the air.
An exhalation valve significantly reduces moisture and CO2 build up. I've had the same issue with moisture. I've thought of trying a non-toxic desiccant, like rice, inside the mask, not sure if that would help much. I've seen respirators that advertise the benefits of the exhalation valve in reducing moisture and CO2.
It might help. And in the rare case where I will wear a mask around elderly or sick ill certainly try that. But regardless, like I said, as of the past few days I decided to no longer take steps to avoid covid outside of maybe the usual good habits of washing my hands and covering my mouth if i cough.
There isnt enough data to make any hard assertions. But from what I can tell from the recent data this isnt related to the diminishing effectiveness vaccines present over time. That is true too, but that applies to the alpha variants and others.
In the case of delta varriant the vaccine is completely ineffective to reducing transmission even right after the vaccine is administered. No number of boosters will cause it to be effective. It has no effectiveness at reducing viral load of delta at any point.
See the attached image showing viral load of people 14 days after second dose vaccination when they get infected. Viral load is almost identical (in fact a bit higher) than unvaccinated.
This is based on PCR cycles, so I wonder if delta DNA reacts differently to the polymerase or the reactants in the PCR soup.
@Pat I doubt that, but with the delta variant and covid as a whole being such a new disease I'm willing to accept the facts about it may change considerably from what the evidence appears to suggest at the moment.
I can say that infection patterns in highly vaccinated countries seems highly suggestive that the vaccine is ineffective showing the hallmark pattern of first reducing cases significantly and then seeing a surge of cases that follow where an extreme majority is delta varient.
All the evidence, at least for now, strongly suggests the vaccine presents absolutely no attenuation to the spread of the virus. In fact the current data suggests it may increase the spread of the virus slightly.
Except these arent COVID survivors. These are people who showed they didnt have COVID on earlier PCR tests and only contracted covid after being vaccinated.
Huh? I will look when im at my computer but that doesnt look like the study I got the image from (nor does it contain the image). Let me find it again so we can pick it apart, give me a bit as im watching a movie right now and only on my phone.
1. The study is a preprint, it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. But it's from reputable institutions.
2. The virus used in the study came from covid patients, not vaxed individuals.
The study is unrelated to the image I posted, so moot point anyway. I'll find the osurce study when im back.
There's a lot of crap out there, even the peer-reviewed studies.
E.g., look for Vitamin-D studies related to COVID-19. Most show a reverse correlation of Vitamin-D levels to symptomatic COVID-19, but they all have flaws. But they still get published anyway. So you really need to be careful, read them carefully, check the rep of the publications, etc.
What sort of flaws? Not that I disagree but its important to understand peer-review is not replication, nor is it an assertion that the study is complete enough to draw conclusions from. That is left to the reader (And thus simply sharing a peer reviewed study is not enough). This doesnt represent a problem with the publisher or peer-review process. This is how it is supposed to be. It is up to the scientist reading it to be educated enough to know what weight to give it.
if there are particularized issues with the science i may be willing to strike the paper from my notebook.
The peer review process must at least check to see if the conclusions stated in the paper are consistent with the data from the study.
Re the Vitamin-D studies, they basically see a correlation between the amount of Vitamin-D in a patient's blood and how sick they are. (over-simplification). Well, if someone has a serious pre-existing condition, they aren't going to be outside much and will be deficient in Vitamin-D, and those are the ones who will be the sickest from COVID-19. None of the studies even consider that. I found one study that set aside people who had diabetes-II, like they were trying to make the study more credible, but it turns out that D is a fat soluble vitamin, so those fat diabetics likely had more D remaining in their blood anyway, even if they were recently sick, which of course skews the results in favor of reverse correlation.
I don't know why researchers keep trying to show that correlation, but the bias is obvious.
Actually peer review does **not** verify the conclusions directly. What it will verify is any objectively stated figures in the conclusion. For example if they mention confidence intervals they will insure the CI stated matches the data. What they wont generally do is decide if the others opinion WRT how to interprit the data is correct or not. They cant as conclusions from data are opinion, it is only the data that is objective.
Well, they certainly chose which papers they are going to publish, so if they publish a bunch of crap it reflects poorly on their journal.
Yes, but crap usually means if the data is objective, and transparent, not if the conclusion is correct. For example a paper with a small sample size to the point that any data extrapolated would be within the margin of error is going to get rejected not for its conclusion but due to having poor data that makes it impossible to draw conclusions from at all.
>For example a paper with a small sample size to the point that any data extrapolated would be within the margin of error...
Then they just publish it as a "case study".
I think the more credible journals reject studies that are poorly designed in the first place, irrespective of the results.
Case studies are individual peoples or groups of people (not randomly selected usually).. I'm talking about sampling (random selectrion from a large group) where the sample size is biased tot he point of not being able to do statistical analysis on it. A case study wont do statistical analysis at all, so thats fine, as opposed to doing statistical analysis on a group that is too small, thats not fine.
> sterilizing vaccines
i posted before about being dissatisfied with the testing methodology of the 💉 industry. i'll tl;dr it
ivermectin and hcq must prove active infection empirically (PCR) followed by intervention followed by active sterilization empirically (PCR)
vaccines have no requirement to demonstrate similar effectiveness. novavax's papers declare efficacy by declaring reduction of symptoms. i don't think mRNA and adrenovirus models have been required to prove sterility either.
@freemo
That strategy will never get us back to normal. The country and the economy could never handle the drag of that many deaths and disabilities.
There is a very simple way out of this, but for whatever reason, the politicians won't even consider it -- have an all-out public awareness campaign to get at least 60% of the people to wear respirators for about 6-8 weeks. That would eliminate the virus in the US. Then we could use test and trace to keep it in check from then on.