We broke all records of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations today

The FDA has approved two home tests already. One (the Lucira test) that you collect yourself and mail to a lab (and needs a prescription issued by a doctor), and one (the Ellume test) that you do yourself and it returns the result in twenty minutes, and it is over-the-counter, no need for a prescription.

Ideas that this was not "aloud" (sic), or erm, allowed, and that doctors wanted to control this to make money, or "the power base is hiding knowledge from the people" are of course ridiculous.

The FDA approves tests when the accuracy is reasonable (that is, when they have a low number of false negatives and false positives). The process of approval takes a while because a committee needs to scrutinize the science and methodology and results. We don't want to have some sort of quack inundating the market with counterfeit false promises.

I'm always having to post something to counter misinformation... sigh...

 

No. First of all, you posted on 12/12/2020 and the FDA approved the Lucira test on 11/17/2012. Get informed before questioning my knowledge.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...horizes-first-covid-19-test-self-testing-home

The other one was in the process of being approved, and got approved three days after your post. If you possessed the same level of information that I do, you'd have known that the FDA continued to look into such tests and was about to approve more.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...test-first-over-counter-fully-home-diagnostic

The difference between us, is that I know that it needs to be done slowly and carefully. What part of "the process of approval takes a while" you didn't understand?

Regardless of the timeline, your RIDICULOUS ideas that this is "not aloud" (sic) and that it's "done for doctors to make more money" and for the "power base to hide knowledge from people" remain ridiculous, and THAT's the misinformation I spoke against (which was crystal clear in my post, given that I mentioned the word misinformation RIGHT AFTER the paragraph where I said that these ideas (the three above-mentioned ones) were ridiculous, and explained why (so that tests with low accuracy and high number of false positives and false negatives are not approved).

Thanks for playing. Now have a nice and long and safe life. Over and out (as far as debating with you is concerned).

 

I was watching some press from Biden and Fauci today to get a better feel for how Fauci will perform in this administration and found this to be interesting. You seemed quite appalled at discussions of levels or degrees of herd immunity. Here is Fauci making my argument using the term “degree” instead of “level”.

There is pretty broad consensus Fauci is knowledgeable on this subject. Go to the 13:00 minute mark and watch for a couple minutes. That’s likely all the “scientific sounding” content you will be able to stomach.

 

There are no "degrees". There is only one degree: the one at which we can safely open because community transmission is unlikely to occur. Which occurs when 70 to 80% of the people are vaccinated. Which is what Dr. Fauci is really saying. Before that is achieved nothing happens. People will still need to wear masks, social distance, etc. There are also "levels" of infection in which some restrictions are eased. But those have nothing to do with "herd immunity".

BTW, your "other" argument, in which you attempted to justify wearing masks at home, isn't doing too well either. For exactly the reason I pointed out: it's unrealistic. Your position now even has a name: "Covid Absolutism". Measures that we, human beings that we are, would just not adhere to. Which was my argument. But now this goes further. Many scientists are now concerned that unrealistic measures would have the opposite effect. The article I link below is behind a paywall. But it uses an example from the beginning of the AIDS crisis. The campaign to demonize sex contributed to an increase in unsafe sex. People simply concluded that if all sex is bad, why practice safe sex?

From the article: "Telling Americans to wear masks when they’re unnecessary undermines efforts to persuade more people to wear masks where they are vital. " On the same token, telling people that they should wear masks where, we know, they just won't (inside their home when nobody has been exposed) could have the same effect as above and just lead many people to decide that all mask wearing recommendations are "overreacting" and just not wear them anywhere...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/briefing/trump-covid-chick-corea-olympics-president.html

Bottom line, we learn things every day. It's fine to be wrong, because even scientists and experts have made wrong assumptions. But science is more often, by far, right than it is wrong. So the trick to surviving this pandemic is to follow science.

 

Of course there are degrees. That was Fauci’s and my point. There is a degree where in Fauci’s opinion it’s safe to resume more normal behavior. That’s going to be different than other people’s opinion of when it’s safe to open up. Fauci didn’t mis speak. Infection rates fluctuate on both sides of the herd immunity threshold. This is a fact and part of Fauci’s statement in the video.

The science is clear. There are studies you have been shown and the CDC cites to justify use in the home. Mask usage in the home would drastically shorten the pandemic and save countless lives. Just as the science is clear mask usage in public can help some as well. Some people don’t want to wear a mask anywhere. You don’t want to wear one where you are most likely to be infected or infect others. Therefore you are not following science, but instead your erroneous opinion based on your unwillingness to protect those you love because of your desire for personal gratification over the welfare of others.

It’s OK. You are in the majority who deny the science and go on with their lives, adding to the collective deaths and destruction of the economy. It’s your right, but your actions are in direct denial of the science of epidemiology. If you would actually follow the science you wouldn’t so often have to make excuses for your being wrong.

 

Exactly. That's the one and only degree in which there is herd immunity: when we resume more normal behavior.

There are levels of vaccination. But NOT levels of herd immunity. Because herd immunity means, not just that those who are not immune are unlikely to become infected, but that if they do get infected, authorities can easily identify and control the spread by keeping them away from others that are not immune. So the uncontrolled spread of the disease no longer exists. There is NO herd immunity while the spread of the disease is not controlled, and there is when it is controlled. It's a binary proposition.

You could arbitrarily decide to call "degree of herd immunity" how close we are to herd immunity. But that's useless. That arbitrary "degree" is exactly the same as the level of vaccination. Because it's not taking into account whether or not the infections can be controlled. In fact, if you listen to the question Fauci is responding to, it's about vaccination.

"Justify" is not the same as "recommend". There is no CDC recommendation to wear masks at home, unless somebody is infected.

But it's not recommended. Just like not ever going out or coming in contact with anybody... EVER (during the pandemic) would also shorten the pandemic and save lives.... but, in the real world, it wouldn't because it's not realistic. In fact, as the article I linked to explained, making such recommendation would likely have the opposite effect and actually INCREASE the pandemic and produce more deaths. And now you know that your suggestion is called "Covid Absolutism". And it just doesn't work in the real world. Simple as that.

 

LOL. There is herd immunity when normal behavior resumes? Really? My behavior has been normal and last I checked we hadn’t reached the herd immunity threshold. South Dakota exhibited near normal behavior and there was no herd immunity there. Funny stuff.

Herd immunity has nothing to do with authorities identifying infected individuals. Please provide evidence this is true. The herd immunity threshold is reached when each infected person infects less than one other person. Period. As you near the herd immunity threshold infection rates fall. After the herd immunity threshold is reached infection rates may continue to fall or they may remain static. There may still be many infections and even deaths.

Fauci is saying at some point we will reach a degree of herd immunity where reopening makes sense. It may be when each infected person is infecting 1.3 other persons. Or when each infected person is infecting 0.8 other persons. The 1.3 scenario is one “degree” of herd immunity and the 0.9 scenario is another “degree” of herd immunity. Since the herd immunity threshold will actually change with reopening because the factors influencing how many people each infected person infects change based on mitigation practices, “degrees” of herd immunity MUST be considered. If the genetic (see below for technical definition) herd immunity threshold is 70% vaccinated when people are wearing masks and social distancing, it will increase to some value higher than 70% when people no longer mask and social distance. Therefore a specific number is foolishness and “degrees” must be discussed and understood.

To be technically correct, herd immunity can not exist until after we resume “normal” pre-pandemic activity. This is because the formal definition of herd immunity stipulates the threshold is less than one secondary infection per primary infection in the absence of mitigation excluding immunity. So not only are you wrong about “degrees” of herd immunity, what you propose, re-opening after herd immunity is achieved, is technically impossible because we can’t determine the actual herd immunity threshold until after other mitigations cease.

Of course the question was about vaccination. Vaccination is one important aspect of herd immunity. But natural infections, blood type, societal interactions, mitigations like mask usage and distancing all affect the herd immunity threshold as well. The vaccination rate is part of the “degree of herd immunity” but they are not the same. A much higher percentage of individuals must be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold in New York City than on the plains of Montana. Once the herd immunity threshold is reached, infections are occurring at lower rate. But they are not “controlled” in that they still occur. Herd immunity is not absence of disease or cessation of infections.

Fauci was using “degrees” in exactly the manner you say is useless

Of course there are CDC recommendations to wear masks at home in the absence of an infected individual. Here are a couple.

CDC after-travel recommendations:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/covid-1/coronavirus-vietnam

Another for households unable to practice sufficient mitigation in public.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/protect-your-home.html

But it is being recommended more as time goes on. Just as I predicted months ago when I told you the CDC was always behind me in recommending science based mitigations. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

Interestingly enough, the National Health Institute of the UK is now recommending household use of masks in any household containing a person in self isolation. This includes those with C19 and those who may have or may have been exposed to C19 but aren’t confirmed or symptomatic.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coron...preading-coronavirus-to-people-you-live-with/

Your argument of “Covid absolutism” is silly because I could claim we shouldn’t recommend masks in public because many people won’t comply. Or we shouldn’t recommend hand washing because many won’t comply.

If we are to follow our President’s advice of letting science be our guide, we must accept the science and make correct recommendations regardless of how many people follow them. If the goal is saving lives, you offer information that can save them even if few implement the recommendation and benefit. Not very many patients take doctor’s advice to eat right or lose weight. Should doctors lie and tell patients healthy weights don’t matter and aren’t based on empirical evidence just because few are willing to practice delayed gratification? Or should they advise all overweight persons so that the few who do heed the advice may benefit?

It seems you really don’t know much about the subject. You are unaware of CDC recommendations but want to pontificate on the subject anyway without doing your research. You have made me do your research and educate you. That’s fine, but as usual it makes your sig line look quite silly. I suggest you do some actual research on herd immunity and the science behind home mask usage so you can debate without making so many false statements. That will save me having to correct you since you didn’t do your research before commenting.

 

Yes. You could describe it that way. It definitely doesn't literally mean that everybody is immune. That's why we don't need 100% of the people vaccinated. We just need around 70% to be immune if any outbreak can be handled. And we know this has been attained when experts recommend that normal behavior can return.

Hate to break it to you, but the pandemic is not about you.

Wonderful! Happy to see you finally understand that herd immunity is a threshold. So that's the end of that.

And not a second before that. Thank you!

Yes. When somebody is exposed and is quarantined. I originally included in that post a comment about how my wife, who is a pre-school teacher, was recently exposed to a student (a four year old) who tested positive. So she wore a mask when she was in the same room with any of us and we kept a distance until her negative test came in. I deleted that part because I thought it might not be that relevant to the point given that your argument was that people should always wear masks at home. And that would be "Covid absolutism" which, as the article I mentioned shows, is counterproductive.

Let's make one thing clear. Very few of the things I write here are mine. I copy them from an expert, or from science, or... similar. This ensures that I am most often right. You, on the other hand, just ... make up much of what you write as you go along. And that's the reason why you are more often wrong. Because you're not actually debating me. You are debating the experts I mention. "Covid absolutism" is not MY argument. It's the argument of scientists. And scientists tend to be more often right than wrong. So that gives me an advantage over you, who just... makes up your own "science" (a.k.a. "pseudoscience")

Your statement is worse than "silly". It's pseudoscience. And, as all pseudoscience, it does more harm than good. Recommending to wear masks at home, as you argued, would be useless because people... just wouldn't do it. The concept of "Covid absolutism" not only confirms that, but adds that such recommendations would also undermine efforts to promote those that DO work. Like wearing masks in public.

The rest is your habitual silly ad-hominem. Which you always seem to fall back to when you run out of arguments.

 

Here is your claim.

Unfortunately you are incorrect. It’s impossible to reach true herd immunity until long after we resume normal behavior. Not when or before we resume normal behavior. That’s why we use degrees of herd immunity to decide when to open. That is why Fauci used the term. Like me, he’s knowledgeable enough on the subject to understand we will only have a “degree” of herd immunity before reopening. We won’t even know what the real herd immunity threshold is until quite some time AFTER resuming normal activities. So your above assertion that we will have herd immunity when we resume normal behavior is not only incorrect, it’s 100% incorrect.

I’ve not claimed it is. Actually I’m on the outside looking in on the pandemic that’s affecting you. It’s amusing.

There is a herd immunity threshold. There are also degrees of herd immunity on either side of that threshold. We must use degrees at this point in discussion because until we fully resume normal behavior nobody has any idea what the threshold is. To decide when to reopen we must examine what degree of herd immunity exists.

A degree of herd immunity can exist before reopening. That degree is the metric used to decide when to reopen, just as Fauci correctly stated. True herd immunity will not exist until long AFTER we resume normal behavior. You falsely claimed it will happen WHEN we resume normal behavior.

You need to read my links and pull quotes. The CDC is recommending home use if anyone in the household has outside contacts and if anyone in the household is at increased risk. This includes the aged, those with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and the obese.

The science is clear, the best way to protect yourself and others is to utilize masks at home. I’m well aware few will. That’s irrelevant. We don’t lie and discourage those who could benefit just because most won’t. That’s not how science works. Imagine if Galileo had subscribed to your idea we shouldn’t advocate for ideas segments of society reject. If he had, Copernicus’s theory of a heliocentric system may have taken many more years to become accepted. Considering the acceptance of heliocentric theory sparked the scientific revolution, just ignoring strong empirical evidence would have had dire ramifications. The same is true if we deny evidence on the best usage of masks for respiratory viral infection mitigation. If the truth is never revealed and advocated for, no advancement is ever made. Have you ever considered the fact men are less likely to mask than women because they see it as a sign of weakness? It’s quite conceivable some men would wear a mask at home when they wouldn’t in public for this reason. Imagine the good this would do for his family and society.

The role of science is to observe, study, learn, and report. That is what I will continue to do so that individuals who are serious about protecting themselves and their families can do so. If you want to discourage following where science leads then go right on doing so. And if you want to use some article behind a paywall as justification for denial of science knock yourself out. I prefer to give people accurate and complete information so they can make informed decisions for themselves and those they love most.

Let’s be clear. Everything I post is firmly grounded in biology, virology, and epidemiology. What you are posting about herd immunity is not coming from any credible scientist or study etc. It’s blatantly false information regardless of where you think you heard it. I asked you to source your incorrect opinion and you have failed to do so. On the other hand I’ve supplied sources from the CDC recommending mask usage in the home that you claimed doesn’t exist. You are shown to be incorrect but you still say your opinions are from experts. Well, where is the expert that says what I’ve linked from the CDC is fraudulent? Where are your experts claiming the CDC is using pseudoscience?

Furthermore, your link is admittedly behind a paywall. If you are going to try to use links to support an argument you should use links that are accessible.

As far as being wrong, you have NEVER produced ANY evidence I have been. You have only offered your unsubstantiated opinion.

My posts on herd immunity and mask usage are not pseudoscience. They are based on irrefutable empirical evidence which I have presented many times to you. I have presented peer reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of mask use in the home. I have shown you in the past that the CDC is basing their recommendations (that you claim don’t exist) on the exact same studies. On the other hand, you can not provide ANY empirical evidence of your claims. Only a source behind a paywall that we are supposed to take your word for.

On the subject of herd immunity, I have presented the evidence you are mistaken and other PF members have shown your error as well. Your position is not based on science, it’s in direct opposition to science and experts—Fauci being a prime example here using terminology you say isn’t accurate while claiming you get your ideas from experts. I think the problem may be you aren’t knowledgeable enough to know who is an expert. I would be interested in who your expert sources are and where I might access some of their writings etc.

While we wait (likely indefinitely) for you to document your opinions on herd immunity, I’ll demonstrate some “experts” who are as educated as I am on herd immunity and how they use terminology and concepts as I do.

First, Dr. David G. Hill. Here are his credentials.

Link: https://www.lung.org/about-us/our-leadership/david-g-hill
Here he is using the term “levels of herd immunity” in a piece he wrote on herd immunity.

Link: https://www.lung.org/blog/understanding-covid-herd-immunity

Here is a CellPress article that explains how protection from infection increases incrementally as the HIT (herd immunity threshold) is approached.

Link: https://kilpatrick.eeb.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Metcalf-et-al-2015-Trends-Immuno.pdf
If you aren’t familiar with CellPress

Link: https://www.cell.com/about

Here is the World Health Organization's chief scientist, Soumya Swaminathan in an interview with CNBC.

Link: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/23/who-some-level-of-herd-immunity-may-be-reached-by-end-2021-.html

University at Buffalo's Professor and Chief of Infectious Disease Dr. Thomas Russo speaking with WKBW on vaccination affecting herd immunity levels.

Here are Dr. Russo’s credentials.

And of course we have Dr. Fauci himself referring to degrees of herd immunity in the video I shared with you.

Now the above is just a sample of “experts” who have a fundamental understanding of herd immunity as I do and are comfortable using terms you despise to discuss herd immunity. They are not pseudoscientists. They are not making things up. They are discussing concepts you do not understand and apparently have no interest in learning about—which is fine. But if you don’t want to educate yourself or adhere to your sig line, at least refrain from calling people who actually are educated and understand the concept of herd immunity pseudoscientists.

You have now admitted you operate on an appeal to authority basis without thinking for yourself. That is why I’ve provided experts for you who understand herd immunity in depth as I do. Normally, the evidence from science itself that I present should be adequate, but since you admittedly appeal to authority for your beliefs I’m doing your homework for you and providing authority for you to appeal to.

I will never run out of arguments because I am essentially a scientist myself. There are always new discoveries and new concepts to explore and study. My mind is open to empirical evidence regardless of what any “authority” says. My posts will always be based on empirical evidence, not opinions of others. This is why you can never present a study or any other empirical evidence I’m incorrect. Your only option is to call things you can’t or won’t understand pseudoscience.

 

Oh, back to Covid absolutism. Here’s the quote you provided from the link behind a paywall.

It’s very strange you would use this quote because it actually supports my argument. Wearing masks outdoors is almost completely unnecessary. Wearing masks in indoor public places has an effect on transmission rates. Wearing masks in the home has a much greater effect on transmission rates than public mask wearing. I’ve shown you before the likelihood of being infected or infecting another at home is several times that of being infected or infecting someone outside the home.


The science and math are clear. If you want to invoke Covid absolutism you would have to stop recommending masks where least effective and recommend them instead where most effective. Therefore you would recommend usage at home and not recommend in public, and certainly not outdoors.


Here are a few references on secondary attack rates in households vs. other settings to show mask usage is actually more vital in households than other places.

https://www.jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/13256

Another.

Link: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-11-27-COVID19-Report-38.pdf



So again the science is clear. If we want to use Covid absolutism as a guide, the empirical evidence clearly shows we should have recommended masks in the home INSTEAD of in public because their use is most vital in the home. Of course it’s too late now. We’ve had almost a year (would have been a year if they hadn’t lied about mask usage in public for almost two months) of constant hammering on public mask usage when all along, public usage was the less vital venue.

 

Forgive me for coming in the middle, but how did it get in the household?

 

I guess they took the advice of “experts” and wore a mask that didn’t protect them. LOL

Yes, I see your point. But I’ve never advocated against public mitigations. Or any mitigations. Golem is the one advocating for less mitigation. I’m simply pointing out the facts of epidemiology and how they apply to the goofy theory of Covid absolutism.

In the past I’ve pointed out how keeping public infections from happening by locking down and wearing masks at home could essentially end the pandemic in a few weeks.

 

LOL. Given that I had stopped paying attention to what you were posting, I didn't see this, at the time. So you think I'm some sort of "technical" person who is not dedicated to actual research??? Too funny. And you get all that, because of an Epistemology minor in college, and you taught it for a short time???

Unlike you, my scientific background does not come out of a minor in college. Try graduate school, with double doctoral degrees instead (MD/PhD). And unlike you, I have taught and created science, not for a short time, unless you think that 40 years is a short time. So, I'm not dedicated to actual research? I wonder why I keep getting so many grants as principal investigator, and so many of my resulting papers get accepted in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals - and why in the hell does my university even employ me as a professor???

Dang, it's so strange that someone who supposedly, in your enlightened opinion, is "not dedicated to actual research" keeps getting rewarded this way, right? The organizations that allocate the grants and the scientific journals that peer-review and accept papers must be out of their minds. Instead of giving me their grants to conduct research and instead of publishing my papers, they should rather reward some guy who got a minor in Epistemology in college and taught it "for a short time." Picking the latter rather than me will certainly advance the sciences in this country a lot better, right?

Unbelievable.

And by the way, in your debates with @557 pretty much everything that you say is wrong, and pretty much everything that he says is right. You said you'll defer to me in Virology (yep, you should), then, I'm sure you'll take my word for it, right? If you won't, well, you should.

 

Much the opposite, household transmission accounts for a HUGE chunk of all transmissions. But I know that expecting that people will wear masks at home is an uphill battle.

 

There are two distinct approaches that a government can use. One, giving advice that the population on the whole will follow or, two, giving advice that the population on the whole will not follow. Advising mask wear at home falls into the second category. It does not matter if that is where most infections occur. The argument of "that is what I do" is pointless. It's not about you. The government cannot base advice on what "you" would do, they have to give advice for the general population. The general population will not wear a mask at home. If they are advised to do that, human behaviour will dictate resulting in them not only ignoring that advice but also not wearing a mask in outside social gatherings.

 

I'm with you.
It seems to me the horse is out of the barn by the time it's running around your house like a kindergartener.

This seems more practical:

• There are five primary places where most of the coronavirus transmission is happening in the US right now, according to public health experts.
• They include hotels and churches, as well as three that can be grouped together — restaurants, bars, and cafes.

80% of people catch the coronavirus in these 5 places (msn.com)

 

If the general population won’t do anything to protect themselves and those they love, the general population should stop complaining about people who don’t want to wear masks in public. Those people are simply exhibiting human behavior as well. If an individual is aware of the facts and makes decisions that may kill them and those they love anyway, they have no business criticizing others who are loath to employ other mitigations for which there is empirical evidence to support.

I’m in agreement with you on the percentage of people who will protect themselves and others. It’s low. Clearly safety from Covid 19 is not a priority of the vast majority of Americans. They have had almost a year to lose weight, control type 2 diabetes and attenuate heart disease through diet and exercise, and curb substance addictions that exacerbate the symptoms of Covid 19. Have they? Doesn’t appear that they have. So no, the average Joe is not going to wear a mask at home.

But we don’t stop advocating for healthy behaviors because we know most won’t adopt them. We don’t stop encouraging smack addicts to get clean. We don’t stop trying to rehabilitate property criminals even though we know the recidivism rates approach 70%. We don’t stop promoting healthy weights or exercise when we know the majority are going to remain fat. We don’t tell the obese they can be healthy by only cutting out calories they dislike anyway. Or tell them the exercise they get opening twinkies is sufficient because human behavior dictates if we recommend exercise they don’t enjoy they will find someone else to open their twinkies in protest.

This Covid absolutism is a cute argument but if you fall for it you must stop promoting any healthy behavior the majority won’t adopt on the same grounds. It’s simply an excuse to be irresponsible. The correct approach is to educate everyone on the facts and let them make up their own minds. Unless we want to use violence to enforce behavior humans won’t engage in on their own. But that’s definitely Covid absolutism on steroids!

To be fair to Covid absolutism, the idea annoying recommendations LACKING a positive “return on investment” are bad recommendations is accurate. That’s just common sense. But using the absolutism argument against the most vital mitigations is not only illogical, but borderline criminal.

Also, the government is advising mask use at home—and doing so more as time progresses. The wheels turn slow for government. Look, it took over six weeks for them to recommend masks at all while the world was masking around us and Americans were being infected and dying at exponential rates. A Trump administration scientist was the first (well, second after me) to introduce the concept to the American people. I predicted last summer the CDC would begin recommending mask usage in the home at some point. I was correct.

In closing, the general population rarely adheres to social distancing guidelines. The government still makes the recommendation. The general population very rarely adheres to the recommendation of staying home and out of circulation except for necessary purchases etc., yet the recommendation is still made. The recommendations on proper mask donning and doffing are rarely followed if ever, yet the recommendation still appears on CDC websites, etc. Over the holidays everyone knew a bunch of folks were going to congregate, but it was advised against anyway. Why are the recommendations made if we know few will follow them to the letter, if at all?

 

This study of cell phone tracking excluded homes, nursing homes and other places with high rates of transmission. It does not look at home transmission at all. It only ranks the handful of places included in the study.

It is indisputable the majority of transmission happens in the home. Study after study confirms the secondary attack rate in households is 3-4 times the secondary attack rate of other venues.

Please scroll up to post #235 where I listed two of the many actual large scale studies of seconds attack rates.

I’m not trying to be snide but you have fallen for another false media piece by an uninformed journalist reporting on a study they aren’t qualified to report on and didn’t research.

 

I will respond in a general way but using the UK, my country, as an example. Our government did not advise mask wear at home as far as I have seen. A surprisingly huge majority in my country to my surprise do social distance and practically 100% now will wear a mask when in stores. In our first lockdown the streets were empty. In our present third national lockdown the amount of cars on the roads is hardly any different to pre-lockdown. Many more people are out exercising than before - ironically more seem to do so during lockdown than were doing so between lockdown periods - another trait of human behaviour ie they go out when they are not really allowed to go out

 

I linked you to the NHI of your country recommending home usage of masks for those in isolation regardless of known infection.

We can’t really quickly change human behavior without threat or use of violence. Inducing fear may work temporarily, but I’m opposed to using fear as a motivator as well. We can only provide the best and most helpful information to individuals. That’s my goal. I’m not into forcing anyone to do anything.

 

Yes they did advise that but I was more referring to general mask usage at home

 

Let's organize this a bit....

You: "There is a degree where in Fauci’s opinion it’s safe to resume more normal behavior."
To which I responded.
Me: "That's the one and only degree in which there is herd immunity: when we resume more normal behavior."

That was exactly point. Your introduction of this concept of "true herd immunity" (whatever that is, because you don't even define it) is of no practical use. The one and only "herd immunity" that matters is when we can resume normal behavior. There is little to none interest or use, other than in a purely academic setting, of whether or not the Covid 19 virus exists or not (it will probably always exist). So even you moving the goal posts makes no difference. You have been talking about "degrees of herd immunity" for a long time. Way before there was a vaccine. My point is that it makes absolutely NO sense to talk about "degrees of herd immunity" until that one and only practical point: when we can reopen because the spread is under control (i.e., cases are few, and can be controlled when it becomes possible to spread to re-initiate normal activity). And this is a binary point.

At this point, I started to cite definitions on specific medical and specialized websites that support what I'm trying to convey, but I deleted them for two reasons: 1- Because you didn't bother to define or even explain what this "real herd immunity" thingy, means. That indicates you clearly thought it was irrelevant to this discussion (and I agree that it is) I can pretty much assume what it is you mean, but you didn't state it so... 2- Because even if you had defined it, we are in agreement to my point that there is no such thing as "degrees of herd immunity" until AFTER we reopen. Whether "after" means one second or one year after is not relevant to my point. And this is important because people (I don't remember if you were one of them or not, and not worth it to look it up) started talking, even before that vaccine existed, about "partial herd immunity". As if herd immunity could be reached "naturally" without a cataclysmic loss of life. And that was not only nonsense but dangerous. You can choose to use "levels of herd immunity" to mean "levels of vaccination". But that's pure semantics.

Since we are agreement on my main point. Let's carry on.

The secret to making a clear point is to make it as clearly and succinctly as possible. Or, as Popper would have said: "... keep working on it until you can". The following paragraph is the point you are trying to make.

The CDC recommends wearing masks at home in very specific scenarios. For example, if somebody is infected. If somebody was exposed to a known Covid case. If, for some reason, you are unable to follow social guidelines when outside your home.... and so on...

We know this. They are pretty obvious. But there is no "blanket" recommendation to wear masks at home. Recommending that would be "Covid absolutism", and it would be unrealistic (people would not follow it) and it would be counter productive.

BTW, "Covid absolutism" is not "cute". It's based on expert experience from previous pandemics and other crisis. But if you don't value expert opinion, my point is made by the fact alone that such a "blanket" recommendation to wear a mask at home is clearly not realistic: people would just not follow it. Except in the scenarios above. Which most responsible people would probably follow because it's temporary.

 

I have no idea. I don't know you. What I do know is that what I originally responded to (criticisms to experts for not recommending masks) does not demonstrate great epistemological proficiency. I participated for some time in a panel that was tasked with deciding when (and when not to) assign those research funds you mention. I saw excellent researchers make epistemological mistakes. We rejected funding to projects by scientists who had been very successful before, because there were clear methodological errors.

Anyway, that's besides the point. The real point is this: expert recommendations are based on science. There was a point in which experts didn't know if recommending masks would help or harm in stopping the spread of the virus. And there is a point when they do. Studies on previous viruses that are "similar" can be taken into account. But just assuming that that's enough is absurd. At the point when science knows nothing or very little about the virus, it is not wise to make recommendations just because they kinda sorta "sound" reasonable. There were reasons at the start of the crisis to not recommend wearing masks (see discussion on this thread about "Covid absolutism" for one of the reasons). There were also reasons to recommend them. So Occam's razor is applied at that point. When there is enough scientific research to tilt the balance towards mask wearing, that's when the recommendation is issued. Anything else is pseudo-science.

That's the point. If you want to discuss that... great. Anything else... I'm just not interested.

 

I don't think you understand the research and how it applies to the family of coronaviruses. You're simply not equipped to understand, like you've lavishly demonstrated with your posts. The real point is, masks can and do filter out coronaviruses. There isn't any PHYSICAL property of the different coronaviruses that would influence their trapping by advanced masks based on Brownian Motion and electrostatic charges. Their genetic differences in infectiousness and lethality are irrelevant to the question of whether or not masks can filter them out. Besides, my Lancet meta-analysis link pointed ALSO to research done specifically with the SARS-CoV-2. And then, to pretend I don't display epistemological proficiency is absurd. Sure, you don't know me. Whatever. People who do would never make this assumption about me, a career scientist with 40 years of experience (and keeping sharp and up-do-date). Pseudo-science? LOL.

You are right. We have NOTHING to talk about. *I'M* the one not interested. I regret that I ever repaid YOU any attention. I won't be repeating this mistake. Over and out.

 

We didn't know that in early 2020! We didn't know if similarities (or differences) were significant or not.

You illustrate perfectly the difference between the job of scientists and that of policy experts. The reasons for recommending to wear or not wear a facemask extends beyond the physical properties of the virus. And policy experts need to know more science than just the one behind the virus itself. So not even going into a discussion of how certain we were in early 2020 that makeshift masks (non N95 or similar) helped against coronavirus in general, any epistemologist will point out that sciences are not isolated from each other.

In early 2020, we didn't know how exactly it was transmitted. We didn't know if it had different properties. We didn't know how likely it was to transmit the virus in the open, or when in contact with surfaces.... You are asking that we assume that there was no difference when we were dealing with a deadly disease. Recommending to wear masks (makeshift masks) was, and still is, a complete and complex cultural change in this country. You don't change a culture this radically based on assumptions. Because such a change can bring unforeseen negative consequences.

You were not the one who made the original claim that I responded to. But I'm speaking in general. Not about anybody in particular. You seem to be intent on finding some way to make this personal. I'll take a pass on that.