3 ms·

"Though Omicron's severity is lower, it is not zero. " There isn't a zero risk of any number of more dangerous things. This is no longer high risk, at all, for

"Though Omicron's severity is lower, it is not zero. " There isn't a zero risk of any number of more dangerous things. This is no longer high risk, at all, for reasonably healthy people who are vaccinated and boosted. (those who aren't are foolish) I'm willing to wait out the surge, but after that, I am hoping those in my community (bay area.... which doesn't have overcrowding of hospitals because of high vaccination rate) are ready to get rid of the masks and get on with normal life.

dredmorbius 5y ago
My point is that at a population level, the multiple of reduced severity * vastly greater infectiousness appears to be a net higher overall impact in terms of hospitalisations and deaths. This is especially the case for countries which have to date managed to contain earlier Covid variants. Australia comes to mind. Or China. Masking to slow spread seems highly apposite.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  The point is it’s too late, the peak already happened. You can’t slow the spread because the peak infection rate is already here and population dynamics are going to limit it now. Good times for advice like this for masking were a month ago and a year ago. It is time to admit defeat and act like it’s too late for those kinds of growth mitigations.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    There are places which have not yet peaked, or have not yet started. In the US, a few (mostly east-coast) states have peaked. West, central, and mountain, and south, not so much. Given limited services and long distances in rural states, masking would be highly advisible. (Numerous highly-advisable actions have, of course, been soundly rejected.) Both the practice and empirical data on its efficacy would be useful in parts of the world Omicron has not yet hit. I do agree the advice would have been far more useful 4--6 weeks ago. Call your local Timelord.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nradov 5y ago
      Wastewater monitoring data shows that the peak was probably a few days ago in the SF Bay Area. Other areas may lead or lag by a few days. https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater

dredmorbius 5y ago

My point is that at a population level, the multiple of reduced severity * vastly greater infectiousness appears to be a net higher overall impact in terms of hospitalisations and deaths. This is especially the case for countries which have to date managed to contain earlier Covid variants. Australia comes to mind. Or China. Masking to slow spread seems highly apposite.

colechristensen 5y ago
The point is it’s too late, the peak already happened. You can’t slow the spread because the peak infection rate is already here and population dynamics are going to limit it now. Good times for advice like this for masking were a month ago and a year ago. It is time to admit defeat and act like it’s too late for those kinds of growth mitigations.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  There are places which have not yet peaked, or have not yet started. In the US, a few (mostly east-coast) states have peaked. West, central, and mountain, and south, not so much. Given limited services and long distances in rural states, masking would be highly advisible. (Numerous highly-advisable actions have, of course, been soundly rejected.) Both the practice and empirical data on its efficacy would be useful in parts of the world Omicron has not yet hit. I do agree the advice would have been far more useful 4--6 weeks ago. Call your local Timelord.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 5y ago
    Wastewater monitoring data shows that the peak was probably a few days ago in the SF Bay Area. Other areas may lead or lag by a few days. https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater