@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.
🇳🇱
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@freemo just armchair thoughts: wouldn't it benefit everyone because a) they are immune then and b) natual immunity also includes antibodies and memory cells of all parts of the virus, not only the wuhan strain spikes, thereby reducing the attack surface for emerging variants? would be interesting how omikron fares in the lesser vaccinated european nations, especially those who had a huge number of cases with the older variants.
sidenote: it really grinds my gear that every new variant is touted as more deadly than the last, even of it doesn't really makes sense. the selection should favor "silent" infections imho.
@bonifartius
Its a bit more complicated than that. For starters immunity doesnt identify all parts of a virus. It only identifies parts of a virus that have a binding site on it. As far as i know thats just the spike protien for covid but i may be wrong.
As for immunity leading to reducing the attack surface, thats very much a myth that keeps circulating and its more complex than that. Studies show that when you introduce vaccines, or natural immunity, but do not approach herd immunity that you increase the chances of variants evolving. Therefore immunity is only effective at stoping the virus effectively id herd immunity can be reached first. So the two factors at play is the mutation rate of the virus pitted against the time it takes to approach herd immunity. Coronaviruses tend to evolve relatively quickly and as such its unlikely we could reach a herd immunity before it triggers a new strain.
Finally while you are right the new strains are not going to necessarily evolve towards being more deadly, they also arent neceseraly going to evolve towards being more silent. More often we see it evolve to be more contagious earlier in the infection leaving it to be as deadly as it "wants" to be later in the infection. Many viruses kill or disable you, or show symptoms at all, only after the most contagious part of their life cycle.
@zleap @Pat @trinsec
@freemo
> Its a bit more complicated than that. For starters immunity doesnt identify all parts of a virus. It only identifies parts of a virus that have a binding site on it. As far as i know thats just the spike protien for covid but i may be wrong.
for covid there are at least spike- and nucleocapsid-proteins for which antibodies are created.
> As for immunity leading to reducing the attack surface, thats very much a myth that keeps circulating and its more complex than that. Studies show that when you introduce vaccines, or natural immunity, but do not approach herd immunity that you increase the chances of variants evolving. Therefore immunity is only effective at stoping the virus effectively id herd immunity can be reached first. So the two factors at play is the mutation rate of the virus pitted against the time it takes to approach herd immunity. Coronaviruses tend to evolve relatively quickly and as such its unlikely we could reach a herd immunity before it triggers a new strain.
i meant herd immunity by "attack surface", yes. i think with the current vaccines we can't win the race as immunity wanes too fast (like you've wrote), it might would have been better to roll them out only for at risk groups to reduce the risk for selection around the vaccine. this point is moot though.
> Finally while you are right the new strains are not going to necessarily evolve towards being more deadly, they also arent neceseraly going to evolve towards being more silent. More often we see it evolve to be more contagious earlier in the infection leaving it to be as deadly as it "wants" to be later in the infection. Many viruses kill or disable you, or show symptoms at all, only after the most contagious part of their life cycle.
agreed! i just think it's the worst FUD i know if the WHO president says "deadly as ebola" about the omicron variant.
The one constand with COVID no matter what side you are on is to exaggerate the facts beyond all recognition in your favor
>"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.
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 🤦
@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. 🤷
@zleap @trinsec
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%
@freemo
I agree. Esp since ppl think they are safe wearing a mask and go nearer to other ppl or spend more time indoors than without mask. @bonifartius @Pat @zleap @trinsec
Yes that too.. .From what I can tell the way almost everyone behaves with a mask on seems to significantly increase risks. Since I dont think its possible to train them otherwise (even surgeons need a team to engage in proper mask use) I think the effect of masks is likely harmful overall in any practical sense.
@freemo @blueplanetslittlehelper
that's people being dumb, not masks not working ;) it's the same story for the vaccines, where people act if they are 100% safe.
for me mask are probably still helpful, but i keep distance and know how to use a mask. if driving my car i also have to deal with the ignorance of people. nothing can protect you from that :)
@bonifartius
I never claimed masks cant work or that it isnt people being dumb. My claim is that when people wear masks they increase the transmission of the virus. This relies on the fact that 99.9% of them will be "dumb" even if they know better.
A doctor even, whom knows thry should t take it off to take even a sip of water outside of a clean room, likely will take it off to sip their water, and will almost certainly touch the mask inappropriately when they do simply because their guard is down.
Its about human nature and how people will inevitably behave by having a mask on
@bonifartius
"Three metres are not enough to ensure protection. Even at that distance, it takes less than five minutes for an unvaccinated person standing in the breath of a person with Covid-19 to become infected with almost 100 percent certainty."
💯 certainty? Really? How do they fit this with the SAR of 38% in unvaccinated household members in the UK? I don't wear a mask at home. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
@freemo @Pat @zleap @trinsec
@blueplanetslittlehelper
"almost 100%" ;)
my guess is that most people don't get sick because cross immunity from othet viruses. i've had the flu two times in the past, now not for years, even if it also is a different strain now. there are tests for this for covid now, but they are expensive and nobody pays them. would be rather interesting.
@freemo @blueplanetslittlehelper @zleap @trinsec
Saying something doesn't work when it isn't even used properly isn't an argument at all. That's like saying that the vaccine doesn't work because they missed your arm and squirted all over your clothes instead.
FYI, this what a respirator looks like:
It sure is an argumet when you can virtually garuntee that 99.9% of the population will use it in a way that spreads disease. You cant expect people to use it with the same rigour as a surgeon and to expect it invites disaster
In fact the only reason a surgeon can use a mask effectively at all is thanks to a team of people there ready to scratch their nose for them and give them water without the need to touch their own mask.
>"That's not true. The name respirator includes N95 masks, too, without valve, the only type that is/was common and sometimes mandatory in Germany. They are no "cloth masks" and no surgical masks and should protect better, if they fit and are worn correctly. With they don't for most ppl, which is dangerous."
I understand that many people colloquially refer to respirators as "N95 masks", but they're not masks, they're respirators. They are completely different things.
I posted pics of two different types of respirators. There are other types also. The white one is known as a "filtering facepiece respirator" and the one the cop is wearing is known as "elastomeric respirator".
A mask just covers your nose and mouth. A respirator fits with an airtight seal. A mask is typically make of cloth fabric, while a respirator is made from a melt-blown material that uses electrostatic filtering to capture the smallest particles.
They are completely different.
Also, N95 is the lowest rating for respirators. They go up to N100 (99.97% efficiency).
@Pat
I think there is no denying that under ideal conditions a respirator will effectively filter viruses. I myself dont dispute that part. I just feel that benefit is completely negates and even increases transmission when people actually use them in the wild due to the level of rigor it takes doe them to be effective.
Anyone who sips a drink effectively is turning something that reduces transmission into something that increases it.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @zleap @trinsec
@freemo @blueplanetslittlehelper @zleap @trinsec
The preliminary data on omicron is that it has a very high R0, like the measles. For a virus that is transmitted nearly 100% via the air, touching your face is not an issue, it's breathing contaminated air.
The only way to not breathe contaminated air is to not be around where other people are (or have been) or to wear something that filters the air or has self-contained air.
Touch is virtually irrelevant with such a highly contagious, airborne virus.
@Pat
I addressed why a virus that under normal conditions is primarily airborn might still be an issue in the case of a mask. Largely because its half life on surfaces in the wild doesnt apply when talk about damp/humid environments like a face mask where it would easily survive (unlike natural surfaces)
@blueplanetslittlehelper @zleap @trinsec
>"Outdoors that is common here, too. And if not there are, more often then not, big gapes on both side of the nose, and/or parts of a beard can be seen. And nearly as many, even indoors, only cover their mouth, see "
What type of training do people get in wearing those respirators there?
@Pat @freemo ???
"N95 is the lowest rating for respirators"
That means that the here used FFP2/KN95/N95 masks ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N95_respirator ) which are made of "melt-blown material with an airtight seal", just like the white one but without the valve, IS a respirator, and I didn't stated anything different.
@zleap @trinsec
@Pat @freemo
That's not true. The name respirator includes N95 masks, too, without valve, the only type that is/was common and sometimes mandatory in Germany. They are no "cloth masks" and no surgical masks and should protect better, if they fit and are worn correctly. With they don't for most ppl, which is dangerous. @zleap @trinsec
>"Several ways. First it encourages people to touch their face more as it can be uncomfortable and usally causes people to fidget or itch their nose."
You can't touch your nose or mouth while you're wearing a respirator, it's sealed to the face in an airtight seal. You have to take the respirator away from your face to actually tough your nose or mouth.
>"It also means you have to touch an infected mask and face everytime you drink or eat causing your hand and face to spread."
You can tough the outside of a respirator all you want, but the particles still won't penetrate the filter material.
You should never eat or drink in an area where there may be virus in the air.
>"Moreover masks are only supposed to be used for a few hours at a time, so if they arent washed and reused they become particularly infectious"
You shouldn't be spending that much time in an environment with possible virus in the air. You should only make short, essential trips. I've worn an elastomeric respirator for up to four hours at time without issue.
> You can't touch your nose or mouth while you're wearing a respirator, it's sealed to the face in an airtight seal. You have to take the respirator away from your face to actually tough your nose or mouth.
Exactly, something I see them do constantly without almost any exceptions when I observe people. I almost never see someone who isnt constantly taking their resperator off and on.
> You can tough the outside of a respirator all you want, but the particles still won't penetrate the filter material.
Since touching the outside infects your hands and people are constantly touching their eyes or fidgeting the mask this is still a huge route for infection
> You should never eat or drink in an area where there may be virus in the air.
Except almost no one waits to get to a a clean room to take a sip from their water. So moot point. The problem with your analysis is the huge divide between what a perso should do and what virtually everyone **does** do.
> You shouldn't be spending that much time in an environment with possible virus in the air. You should only make short, essential trips. I've worn an elastomeric respirator for up to four hours at time without issue.
Again what you should do and what people actually do is the issue. In short if people had the rigor of a doctor doing surgery then respirators and masks would be quite effective Im sure. In practice however they make things much worse,
@zleap @trinsec
Actually, I just reread the article and it was 15 out of 30 of the guy's friends that tested positive, not all of them. It doesn't say how many of the 30 were tested or how many of the 15 were symptomatic or what their health status was.