Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---

Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.

It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---

Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.

It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.

---

LOL the Army study I posted literally has the words "County" and "Level" adjacent to one another in the subject line.

You can offer theory and opinion of others that masks stop community spread, but the plain outcome in the real world is inescapably clear. In the places masks were worn most - states and counties with mandates - mask wearing had no impact on community spread.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---

Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.

It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.

---

LOL the Army study I posted literally has the words "County" and "Level" adjacent to one another in the subject line.

You can offer theory and opinion of others that masks stop community spread, but the plain outcome in the real world is inescapably clear. In the places masks were worn most - states and counties with mandates - mask wearing had no impact on community spread.

---

It has the words "county" and "level" because it's a study of one county. In no way is it a comparison among counties in a state, much less a comparison between states. You seriously think it has anything to do with that point just because you managed to match up a couple of words that you'd spotted in my post? Good grief.

What I've offered is not my own theory and opinion but a good number of scientific studies. As before, they await your consideration.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They're not intended to. That's the old straw man again.

---

If masks are not intended to stop community spread, then why mandate them? That old relevance issue again....

---

Because they slow community spread. From your link:

Quote:

---

Alameda County's mandate was implemented not long after the New York Times published an article titled "Why Masks Work, but Mandates Haven't." The piece states that high-quality, well-fitting masks can help minimize an individual's risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, but community-level mandates have failed to affect case rates because the virus is so contagious that it spreads easily in the moments when people take their masks off to eat, drink or be comfortable.

After viewing the case rate graphs, UCSF's Dr. Bob Wachter -- one of the region's more cautious COVID-19 experts and a supporter of mask mandates -- echoed many of that article's sentiments, stating that mandates don't appear to increase the "probability of people wearing good masks correctly." Many people find it difficult to wear an N95 for long periods of time, instead opting for lower-quality cloth or surgical masks.

"If the mandate came with enforcement of wearing a good (N95 or equivalent) mask correctly, it might demonstrate a significant advantage in preventing cases," he wrote to SFGATE in an email. "But there is no real enforcement (certainly not of correct masking using a good mask), which means that the rates of effective masking probably isn't very different in [the Bay Area counties being compared]."

Wachter has long pointed out that anyone who wants to limit their chance of catching COVID-19 can easily do so by wearing a well-fitting N95 when they go out in public, with or without a mask mandate. It's rare for physicians to catch the virus while wearing N95 masks, he told SFGATE, even when interacting with patients who have tested positive.

---

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---

Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.

It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.

---

LOL the Army study I posted literally has the words "County" and "Level" adjacent to one another in the subject line.

You can offer theory and opinion of others that masks stop community spread, but the plain outcome in the real world is inescapably clear. In the places masks were worn most - states and counties with mandates - mask wearing had no impact on community spread.

---

It has the words "county" and "level" because it's a study of one county. In no way is it a comparison among counties in a state, much less a comparison between states. You seriously think it has anything to do with that point just because you managed to match up a couple of words that you'd spotted in my post? Good grief.

What I've offered is not my own theory and opinion but a good number of scientific studies. As before, they await your consideration.

---

so no macro data analysis is warranted.
and no micro data analysis is warranted.
Just theories on what masks should be able to do.
Can't assess what they actually did.
Only what they should have been able to do.

You've been playing with critical theories too long.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---

Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.

It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.

---

LOL the Army study I posted literally has the words "County" and "Level" adjacent to one another in the subject line.

You can offer theory and opinion of others that masks stop community spread, but the plain outcome in the real world is inescapably clear. In the places masks were worn most - states and counties with mandates - mask wearing had no impact on community spread.

---

It has the words "county" and "level" because it's a study of one county. In no way is it a comparison among counties in a state, much less a comparison between states. You seriously think it has anything to do with that point just because you managed to match up a couple of words that you'd spotted in my post? Good grief.

What I've offered is not my own theory and opinion but a good number of scientific studies. As before, they await your consideration.

---

so no macro data analysis is warranted.
and no micro data analysis is warranted.
Just theories on what masks should be able to do.
Can't assess what they actually did.
Only what they should have been able to do.

You've been playing with critical theories too long.

---

I'm not an expert on avant-garde poetry. Is this dadaism? Incorporating elements of randomness to subvert logical expectations, and all that stuff?

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best case you have is that it is not possible for government to enforce an edict that requires every citizen to wear an N95 mask at all time.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

unfortunately, that first para in bold is simply untrue. We all saw how mask mandates were employed. We all lived it. 99% of people did wear masks when & where dictated.

And that second para in bold is making the same error that afflicts your argument on this subject. There is data on the number of medical professionals who caught CV. I saw some early on and the rates were not at all lower than the general public, so the source is just flat misleading the reader. I STILL have to wear a mask when I go to see a doctor. NOT ONE requires me to wear an N95 mask. They know what an N95 mask is, and they see the client with a cloth mask. So why, when I leave my mask in the car, do they offer me a cheapie mask instead of an N95 mask?

Mask wearing, driven by mask mandates, had no measurable impact on community spread. Data over and over and over again showed that.....

---

I'm going to go with the experts in your link. Maybe you should post sources that agree with you some time instead of always agreeing with me.

---

I have posted several, Sam. Over and over. Like the Army study that showed masks provide about a 5-10% reduction in transmission of virus, which is not enough to stop community spread. Simply put, there is no statistically significant difference between community spread in states with mask mandates and those without. There is no statistically significant difference in community spread between states with other more onerous controls and those without. It's been posted and posted and still you keep cherry picking things that don't say what you need them to say.

Show us data that FL, lockdown laggard, had a materially worse outcome than NY, lockdown nirvana..

Show us.

---

The best information comes from studies designed to compare apples to apples, not offhand comparisons of states without any accounting for variables. I've responded your Army study many times, most recently in my link above. As usual, the authors disagreed with you. I also quoted about 20 other studies, none of which you've addressed.

---

I see. Florida is not California, so we cannot compare them in any meaningful way. What a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the fact that there is no data showing mask mandates stopped community spread.

Like the Army study you continue to mischaracterize.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395971/

---

Again, the Army study does not claim to measure the benefit of masks per se. The fact that you've been citing it, and only it, for months and months without ever addressing the dozens of other studies on mask effectiveness should clue you in that you need to dig deeper.

It's not impossible to compare states. It's just a lot more complicated than you'd like to make it. That's true in part because states like Florida and Texas were often at odds with their own local authorities, creating a patchwork of different policies. County-level data is much more meaningful. Despite the complexities and the disagreement over lockdowns and related issues, masks were one of the most clearly successful mitigation practices.

---

LOL the Army study I posted literally has the words "County" and "Level" adjacent to one another in the subject line.

You can offer theory and opinion of others that masks stop community spread, but the plain outcome in the real world is inescapably clear. In the places masks were worn most - states and counties with mandates - mask wearing had no impact on community spread.

---

It has the words "county" and "level" because it's a study of one county. In no way is it a comparison among counties in a state, much less a comparison between states. You seriously think it has anything to do with that point just because you managed to match up a couple of words that you'd spotted in my post? Good grief.

What I've offered is not my own theory and opinion but a good number of scientific studies. As before, they await your consideration.

---

so no macro data analysis is warranted.
and no micro data analysis is warranted.
Just theories on what masks should be able to do.
Can't assess what they actually did.
Only what they should have been able to do.

You've been playing with critical theories too long.

---

I'm not an expert on avant-garde poetry. Is this dadaism? Incorporating elements of randomness to subvert logical expectations, and all that stuff?

---

you have already done all the subversion needed.

---

What’s the risk of getting COVID outside?

Here’s why new variants may have changed the answer: https://t.co/YnZEoHDmCs

— San Francisco Chronicle (@sfchronicle) July 7, 2022

As coronavirus cases surge, driven by the BA.5 variant, New York City officials are encouraging residents and visitors to wear high-quality face masks indoors. pic.twitter.com/WkURpmobWC

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) July 9, 2022

“The White House has reportedly told Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s office that due to the surge in COVID-19 infections in the US and Israel, the president will refrain from shaking hands.” https://t.co/S9w1gxqQWo

— Josh Kraushaar (@JoshKraushaar) July 12, 2022

My team and I have been monitoring the BA.5 variant of COVID-19 for months. We're prepared, and we know how to manage this moment with the vaccines, treatments, and other tools we have made widely available. pic.twitter.com/qDRO6iTA3S

— President Biden (@POTUS) July 12, 2022

ANTHONY FAUCI: “We are certainly not over [COVID]…people have an understandable desire to put this in the rear-view mirror and say we’re through with it. But that’s just not the reality” pic.twitter.com/rF80ndp5vu

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 12, 2022

Nearly two-and-a-half years since the coronavirus pandemic began, the most infectious and transmissible variant yet has arrived https://t.co/sRjfyyFCcu

— CNN (@CNN) July 13, 2022

LA County is planning to instate an indoor masking mandate on July 29. It would apply to all public indoor spaces: pic.twitter.com/8QHgVZropO

— Soumya (@skarlamangla) July 14, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

Cobretti said:

---

Nearly two-and-a-half years since the coronavirus pandemic began, the most infectious and transmissible variant yet has arrived https://t.co/sRjfyyFCcu

— CNN (@CNN) July 13, 2022

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

The reality of old age is exactly why you develop a vaccine or any other medication that addresses the decline in various internal systems that occur due to aging or other comorbidity. This virus was never a real threat to the young and healthy.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Might have been, if it existed in the wild.

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Might have been, if it existed in the wild.

---

The smallpox vaccine is the very reason why it doesn't exist in the wild.

---

Quote:

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Might have been, if it existed in the wild.

---

The smallpox vaccine is the very reason why it doesn't exist in the wild.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I just tested positive again, about 3 days ago.

Third or Fourth time since 2020.. I'm losing count.

It sucks to be sick, but the meds & treatments are working... just like always.

Meanwhile, my wife's uncle just died from Covid last week. He was triple jabbed and wore a mask everywhere... it didn't make any difference.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Might have been, if it existed in the wild.

---

The smallpox vaccine is the very reason why it doesn't exist in the wild.

---

We're talking about two different things. If a disease is eradicated, the inherent effectiveness of the vaccine is no longer the issue. Of course that means people have to actually take it, and in the case of smallpox that often involved vaccine mandates. Probably not something that would go ever well here.

---