3 ms·

I live in Sweden where nobody wears masks. We have not been locked down in any real sense. Primary schools have not been closed, some high schools were but this

I live in Sweden where nobody wears masks. We have not been locked down in any real sense. Primary schools have not been closed, some high schools were but this was mostly left to the schools themselves. Those who want to be vaccinated can get vaccinated, most adults are (myself included). Most children are not vaccinated, they go to school, catch SARS2 and... nothing happens. Not a single teacher was infected in either of my daughter's schools during the whole time. Why can we live mostly normal lives while you seem to be unable to do so? What is the difference between Sweden and wherever it is you live? Also, what happened to personal choice and personal responsibility? By now it is clear that the vaccines do not seem to prevent you from infecting others so the argument for getting vaccinated so as not to infect others has been made moot. This leaves masks - which have been proven (yes, proven) not to work unless N95 or better types are used and crowding avoidance. In other words, get vaccinated to avoid personal risk of a severe infection. If you decide not to get vaccinated for whatever reason you'll have to accept the possibility of a more severe infection. Keep your distance from others if you want, do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it. All of these are personal choices which you'll just have to accept if you want to continue living in a free society. It sounds like you are willing to give up those freedoms for a misplaced sense of protection? In 1775 Benjamin Franklin had the following to say: ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’. He seems to have said it in the context of some people considering a compromise with the Crown over the stationing of British troops in the colonies. His stance was that giving in to these demands would mean the end of any real hope of freedom.

Nursie 5y ago
Be interested to see that there mask proof. And the vaccines do seem to cut do prevent spread, by preventing a large number of infections. Not sure where you get that from either. Why does it sound like I’m willing to give up freedoms? I explicitly said it’s great to have freedoms but that you shouldn’t always use them. It seems like you completely ignored the point of my post.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  On the efficacy of surgical (i.e. non-N95/KN95) masks a Danish randomised control study covering 6000 participants, half of whom got 50 disposable surgical masks each and were told to change them after 8 hours of use did not show a significant difference in infection rate (between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38), 95% CIs compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection). There is a long discussion on CIDRAP [2] triggered by Michael Osterholm's statements on the gap between the perceived and actual efficacy and the downsides of an over-reliance on their protective effect. On the efficacy of vaccination as a means to slow the infection rate there are several sources, once of which [3] was discussed on this site [4] recently. With regard to the "delta"/"Indian" variant the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection [5]. Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. When it comes to freedom of speech it is exactly the type of speech which goes against the common narrative (while staying within the bounds of legality) which should be protected [6]. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 [2] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commentary-my-views-cloth-face-coverings-public-preventing-covid-19 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commenta... [3] https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776 [5] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... [6] ...which does not mean you need to agree, not even that you need to listen.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    Interesting on the masks, the research I had seen on different materials showed that while some materials (fleece) could actually increase spread of exhaled droplets, others could decrease the spread. Particularly three-layers of cloth, one of cotton and two of either silk of chiffon, could create both a physical and electrostatic barrier and be on a par with N95 masks. It does look like mask are over-relied upon, yes, and they do seem to get clung to like some sort of talisman by various governments. That said, it also looks like your research really just rules out the medical style masks from having much effect, which is hardly surprising having worn them - they don't give much of a seal or seem to filter much. > the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection So while the vaccines may not cut transmission among people who get infected while vaccinated, they still massively cut the spread by cutting down on the number of those infections that happen in the first place, even with the delta variant. So vaccination is still a public health measure and not merely a personal choice. > Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? The same damned approach you espouse when you say things like - "do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it" ? Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, because muh freedom of speech. Free speech and freedom to dissent doesn't mean that dissent on covid vaccination is a virtue. It means that that speech doesn't get punished. You can be on the right side of the law and still be doing the absolute wrong thing. Dissent for its own sake is childish, especially where it causes harm, not something to praise. Which is what I was replying to - the assertion that dissent is a virtue. Not in all circumstances it isn't. Not purely as a kneejerk.

Nursie 5y ago

Be interested to see that there mask proof. And the vaccines do seem to cut do prevent spread, by preventing a large number of infections. Not sure where you get that from either. Why does it sound like I’m willing to give up freedoms? I explicitly said it’s great to have freedoms but that you shouldn’t always use them. It seems like you completely ignored the point of my post.

the_third_wave 5y ago
On the efficacy of surgical (i.e. non-N95/KN95) masks a Danish randomised control study covering 6000 participants, half of whom got 50 disposable surgical masks each and were told to change them after 8 hours of use did not show a significant difference in infection rate (between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38), 95% CIs compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection). There is a long discussion on CIDRAP [2] triggered by Michael Osterholm's statements on the gap between the perceived and actual efficacy and the downsides of an over-reliance on their protective effect. On the efficacy of vaccination as a means to slow the infection rate there are several sources, once of which [3] was discussed on this site [4] recently. With regard to the "delta"/"Indian" variant the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection [5]. Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. When it comes to freedom of speech it is exactly the type of speech which goes against the common narrative (while staying within the bounds of legality) which should be protected [6]. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 [2] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commentary-my-views-cloth-face-coverings-public-preventing-covid-19 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commenta... [3] https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776 [5] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... [6] ...which does not mean you need to agree, not even that you need to listen.
- Nursie 5y ago
  Interesting on the masks, the research I had seen on different materials showed that while some materials (fleece) could actually increase spread of exhaled droplets, others could decrease the spread. Particularly three-layers of cloth, one of cotton and two of either silk of chiffon, could create both a physical and electrostatic barrier and be on a par with N95 masks. It does look like mask are over-relied upon, yes, and they do seem to get clung to like some sort of talisman by various governments. That said, it also looks like your research really just rules out the medical style masks from having much effect, which is hardly surprising having worn them - they don't give much of a seal or seem to filter much. > the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection So while the vaccines may not cut transmission among people who get infected while vaccinated, they still massively cut the spread by cutting down on the number of those infections that happen in the first place, even with the delta variant. So vaccination is still a public health measure and not merely a personal choice. > Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? The same damned approach you espouse when you say things like - "do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it" ? Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, because muh freedom of speech. Free speech and freedom to dissent doesn't mean that dissent on covid vaccination is a virtue. It means that that speech doesn't get punished. You can be on the right side of the law and still be doing the absolute wrong thing. Dissent for its own sake is childish, especially where it causes harm, not something to praise. Which is what I was replying to - the assertion that dissent is a virtue. Not in all circumstances it isn't. Not purely as a kneejerk.