I completely understand and agree with that. My problem is when the numbers say one thing, and they do another, they should not pretend that is science. To do so is dishonest on their part.
Excessive Covid precautions
- Thread starter psuaxe70
- Start date
I completely understand and agree with that. My problem is when the numbers say one thing, and they do another, they should not pretend that is science. To do so is dishonest on their part.
If they’re vaccinated, why do they care if someone else is vaccinated or not?
Because the vaccine is about 95% effective. I don’t know if that percentage is any lower for any subset of immune compromised people. So 1 in 20 vaccinated people could still get it.
The restaurant is trying to make money. If they make their customers feel more comfortable they will have more customers. It doesn’t matter what the risk really is, it’s the perception that the restaurant is a safe place which is important to them from a profitability standpoint.
Personally, I don’t want some anti vaxer anti masker spewing spittle on my fois gras flamed in apple brandy as he and his fat wife and out of control ugly unvaccinated children walk by my table. Why don’t these people drive their pickup truck to a pizza or BBQ restaurant instead of coming in here and invading my space? Yeah I have issues - not everyone is perfect like me!
For those whose head is about to explode, I better explain the above was intended to be sarcastic, at least a little bit.
I support a restaurant's *right* to require masks. If they think that's in their best interest, go for it.
At this point, based on my observations, I would be pretty surprised if a restaurant would net more customers by still requiring that everyone wear masks when not eating, but I support their right to maintain the requirement.
Well, how it works is actually a lot more nuanced than that.
It's not like the vaccine fully works for 95% of people, and doesn't work at all for the other 5%.
It's "95% effective," which means, on the aggregate, when vaccinated and exposed to the virus, the result will be 95% less severe than if not vaccinated.
So, while a vaccinated person could still "get it," (become infected enough to test positive on a PCR test), in the vast majority of those rare cases, the symptoms will be somewhere between very mild and non-existent.
Last I looked, the CDC had recorded like 900 potentially-covid-related hospitalizations out of the 120,000,000 fully vaxed population. That is 0.0000075 of the fully vaxed population.
If you are vaccinated, getting from your home to the restaurant likely presented considerably more risk to you than does contracting Covid.
(RE immune comprimised... It is true that the vaccine does not provide them with the same protection that is does for those with full/healthy immune systems, but generally, the vaccine does provide them with a much improved immune response as well. The 0.0000075 from above includes everyone)
So apparently you want to wear masks for the rest of our lives since it’s never going to be 100% effective.
I don't think that is the case. I'm not expert in the field so, if I'm off-base, please educate me. My impression of how vaccine effectiveness is determined is that vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are monitored for the presence of the disease. I think that that is performed through testing for the disease without regard to severity. I believe that the vaccinated cohort had roughly a 95% lower incidence of testing positive than the unvaccinated cohort. Again, I could be wrong and won't mind if those more knowledgeable in the field correct any of my understanding in this area.
I worked these numbers out back in November when Pfizer first reported 90% but I took their actual data and ran a few quick calculations. After Moderna came out with 94.!% Pfizer decided to publish 95%. Here is a copy of the post.
85 cases out of 4,300 control group
9 cases out of 39,000 experimental group
(9 / 39,000) = 0.00023 which means 0.023% of the population still got the virus so therefore it is not 100% effective, but darn close.
(85 / 4,300) = 0.0198 which means 1.98% (essentially 2%) of those without the vaccine caught the virus. About what we see in the general population and to be expected.
So if the 39,000 group hadn't had the vaccine how many cases would they have expected? That's (39,000 * 0.0198) = 772 expected cases if the vaccine had no effect, yet they only had 9 cases.
Therefore, (9 / 772) = 0.012 This means that the experimental group had 1.2% of the cases that would have been present without the vaccine. That's 98.8% effective!
Now, Pfizer knows two things. The vaccine isn't 100% effective, but, with a very high degree of confidence they can say it's 90% effective.
85 cases out of 4,300 control group
9 cases out of 39,000 experimental group
(9 / 39,000) = 0.00023 which means 0.023% of the population still got the virus so therefore it is not 100% effective, but darn close.
(85 / 4,300) = 0.0198 which means 1.98% (essentially 2%) of those without the vaccine caught the virus. About what we see in the general population and to be expected.
So if the 39,000 group hadn't had the vaccine how many cases would they have expected? That's (39,000 * 0.0198) = 772 expected cases if the vaccine had no effect, yet they only had 9 cases.
Therefore, (9 / 772) = 0.012 This means that the experimental group had 1.2% of the cases that would have been present without the vaccine. That's 98.8% effective!
Now, Pfizer knows two things. The vaccine isn't 100% effective, but, with a very high degree of confidence they can say it's 90% effective.
Yeah, my explanation wasn't exactly correct but I thought it was a decent enough approximation for the sake of my post - which was to correct a misconception that this vaccine being 95% effective means that for the other 5%, it's like they didn't even receive the vaccine. That could not be further from the truth.
I read the study result report, including the resulting data, that Pfizer presented to the FDA.
I couldn't exactly figure out how they arrived at the 95% value, but they had predefined endpoints such as "serious symptoms" (which included things like sneezing, which I thought was odd), hospitalization, and death. Out of the what, 40k participants (20k in the vaccine group), none died, and I don't think anyone was even hospitalized (with Covid). There were a handful that reported very minor (IMO) symptoms.
There were different percentages for each of the endpoint.
After I read it, I was like, how is this only considered 95% effective?
Then, I later heard someone who seemed like they knew what they were talking about describing how the FDA wants people to think of that percentage, and it was something *like* what I posted. I'm sure I didn't get it exactly right.
As to the original topic, why are all hot beverage machines shut down or posted "out of order" at any rest stop? Similarly why did C-stores for over a year stop everyone from bringing their own coffee cup into the store to fill up?
Would be interested to know how a paper cup falling into a slot and being filled with a sub-optimal hot beverage is spreading covid. Also curious how your Yeti being held under a carafe or whatever you call it is destroying thousands of lives.
These restrictions seem excessive. I know nobody can share opinions on this sort of thing unless you're a virologist but the logic seems to fall short.
Would be interested to know how a paper cup falling into a slot and being filled with a sub-optimal hot beverage is spreading covid. Also curious how your Yeti being held under a carafe or whatever you call it is destroying thousands of lives.
These restrictions seem excessive. I know nobody can share opinions on this sort of thing unless you're a virologist but the logic seems to fall short.
I don’t want to wear a mask now but I will until the reductions in cases probably drop for another month or so and we reach 70% or whatever we need for herd immunity. It will all depend on where I’m going and I’ll probably wear one in my hospital and Dr offices, and even their parking lots. I’ll hold off on indoor restaurants for awhile until I’m convinced there won’t be a spike in the next month. I won’t wear one to the beach but will put one on to enter a boardwalk store. Basically I’ll just try to use common sense as I evaluate the relative risk of various venues and I’ll obey the requirement of the business establishments who are trying to protect their workers, or you from them. Wearing a mask is not anout protecting the mask wearer from Cocid, its about protecting the non masked from the infected nasked person.
Last edited:
Some people don't depend on others for their own protection. Immortality is not a realistic goal. At least it hasn't been so far.
It’s more about people feeling like they’re doing something.
To each their own. You do you. As long as you're not judging others for not wearing a mask, I won't judge you for wearing one. But based on 1) The data regarding fully vaxed transmitting the virus; 2) Vax being available to everyone for 2+ months now; 3) Existing natural immunity; and 4) Transitioning from spring to summer, a fully vaxed person is more likely to win the power ball three nights in a row than is the liklihood that them wearing a mask will protect someone from a negative outcome RE Covid.
Ok, that's a bit hyperbolic, but probably not by as much as you think.
Let's look at a hypothetical fully vaxed individual in the US who isn't raging at college parties:
- Chance of individual even being exposed to the virus at all = Fairly low.
- Chance of exposure being enough viral load to cause PCR-detectable infection = very very low.
- Chance of that infection becoming serious enough that individual becomes symptomatic and infectious = ridiculously low.
- Chance of that symptomatic infectious vaxed individual coming in contact with and exposing individual vulnerable to unwanted negative outcome - i.e. not someone choosing not to protect themselves. (very very low)
- Chance of that individual receiving sufficient enough viral load from contagious vaxed individual to become infected themselves (very very low, maybe ridiculously low).
When you multiply the chances of (fairly low) x (very very low) x (ridiculously low) x (very very low) x (very very low), you end up with an overall chance that is ridiculously insanely very very low. If you could accurately quantify all of that, it probably would literally be in the ballpark of powerball odds (yes, not powerball three nights in a row odds though
).Again though.... As long as you're not judging others for not doing something they would prefer not to do - something that the data over the past year has shown to have somewhere between minimal and no effectiveness anyway, btw - to lower the chances of something that already has powerball-low chances of happening in the first place, more power to you. Wear your mask. All good. I'm just here trying to correct all the Covid misinformation that has calcified over the past year.
Last edited:
After my experience yesterday (not with the cicadas) swallowing bugs while riding, I'm definitely packing a bandana going forward. Sometimes I don't experience bugs at all. Yesterday was horrible. I had to clean my glasses like they were a windshield from all the bugs I ran into.
In a relatively large study (of which I am enrolled) of solid organ transplant patients (admittedly only a subset of the immune compromised) only a little over 60% of the vaccinated have developed antibodies (not necessarily a predictor of immunity) to the COVID-19 protein spike. It is likely drug dependent but in general, lung transplant patients (I’m 6.75 post double lung, negative for antibodies despite both doses of Moderna) have had the least response - only about 17% have shown at least some positivity for antibody production.
I wish the additional 50% of teenage female children who committed suicide this year didn't happen too.
Perhaps you folks have seen this. I was in a coffee shop yesterday that had a sheet of clear plastic dropping down from the ceiling and blocking the front counter area. There was a small cut-out at the register to pay and another one at one end of the counter to collect food and drinks. All employees behind the plastic wall were wearing masks.
The funny thing is customers are not required to wear masks and they are not requiring social distancing. All seats are available.
The funny thing is customers are not required to wear masks and they are not requiring social distancing. All seats are available.
Similar threads
