Psaki: Even After Vaccine, You Still Need to Social Distance and Wear Masks

Heinlein had it right

Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

 

Great post.

I'd add tht the unspoken catch is that the stupid take others with them.

They congregate with no masks, etc., and then they infect others.

Then, they demand that health care workers risk their own lives to try to save their stupid ass while clogging hospitals so others can't get the healthcare they need. People are left without hip replacements, cancer treatments, and other stuff termed nonemergent, but are serious needs.

Then, the infection rate blossoms and thus our economy goes to hell, leaving people being food insecure and being evicted - which is a life long impediment to EVER renting again. And, those NOT evicted are building up debt that is hard to believe they will ever be able to repay.


It's sad they are so stupid.

But, that doesn't give them the right to do this to our nation.

 

Hi, buddy. As usual I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'd just like to add that the administration has changed and the leadership at the CDC has changed. So you can't blame the current CDC for the errors made by the previous CDC. I'm hopeful that the current CDC will do a better job. They've been on the job for three weeks. Let's give them some time to acclimate and see if they can make things better. For one thing, this administration is unlikely to be trying to curtail testing and be pushing for idiotic and naive approaches to herd immunity. Have you seen the accounts that have surfaced now, about how the Trump administration was putting pressure on the CDC?

But I do like your take on the CDC making accurate and transparent information available, instead ot making recommendations.

It would be nice to have educational campaigns, just stating the facts, very honestly, and concluding each spot with something like "these are the facts as we currently see them. Science evolves as new evidence comes in but these are what we're currently calling facts. Dear viewer/listener/reader: armed with these facts, it is now your responsibility to consider the situation and make good decisions for yourself, your loved ones, and your family."

How refreshing would that be?

Imagine:

"The mask facts as we see them now: Masks can decrease the relative risk of both transmitting and catching this virus, but never by 100%. Different masks have different efficacy. From most to least efficatious, it's as follows: N100 respirators, N95 respirators, FFP2 respirators, KN95 respirators (provided that they are not counterfeit), ASTM level 3 facemasks, ASTM level 2 facemasks, ASTM level 1 facemasks, non-ASTM-graded facemasks, two-layered cloth masks with internal filters, single-layered cloth masks, bandanas, and neck goiters. So this goes from highly efficatious N100s that filter about 99.97% of viral particulates, to bandanas that are practically useless at 2% and neck goiters that are truly useless or even detrimental. And then, masks need good seal to work, and need to cover both the mouth and the nose. Loose-fitting masks and masks worn under the nose or the chin are useless. Constantly touching and readjusting masks will defeat them. Being overconfident simply for having a mask and engaging in other risky behaviors will backfire. But the right mask worn the right way indeed can protect you, your loved ones, and your community to a variable (but never 100%) degree. The best protection comes from wearing the first three categories listed above (N100, N95, or FFP2). Masks are especially important indoors and in non-ventilated places so if one lives with people with different degrees of exposure, indoor mask use at home would remain important. Now we invite you to, armed with these facts, decide for yourself if you should wear one, which one, where, and how; that is, what level of protection you believe that is right for you. We hope you'll make good decisions and trust you that you will!"

 

Hopefully not people like you, Trump, or Alex Jones. You all operate outside of the realm of science and empirical evidence. Preferably people like me who don’t have a political agenda and understand and follow the evidence.

LOL. There you go following bad “expert” advice. Wearing a good mask is very protective of the individual. Wear the garbage your “experts” in government recommend and both the wearer and others are at more risk. I can’t believe after a year you are still stuck on masks just to “protect others”. That you still think this is proof government has little interest in ending the pandemic. You’ve been misinformed.

Sure. I advocate for vaccination therefore I believe the pandemic is a hoax of their creation LOL. I’m on record hundreds of times discussing intricacies of the virus itself and how it affects the human body. Therefore I think the virus is a hoax. Sure. You’re convincing. I read and present more factual information from actual studies than only a couple other members. You, nor others can present data or research refuting my posts. But I can’t be bothered to read. LOL. I’m on record at PF advocating for mask usage where evidence shows conclusively it has the most mitigating effect on transmission. I am one of a couple people who consistently follow the science on mask usage here and back up my posts with irrefutable evidence. I seldom have found a use for a mask because I employ mitigations shown by science to be much more effective. I’ve criticized and debunked tabloid journalism you’ve spouted in this thread by presenting empirical evidence, yet I’m the one basing my posts on infowars. LOL.

I have presented evidence for almost a year government isn’t serious about ending the pandemic. From the insistence that competent labs and research facilities couldn’t compete to develop good PCR tests at the start of the pandemic to the current ridiculous homemade mask recommendations, almost every action of government has been detrimental. What exactly has government done that has helped? You all griped about the test shortage, but now you advocate for the same bureaucracies to advise you. You complain that people won’t wear masks but you defend bureaucrats that discouraged mask usage when people showed an interest in it on their own. You don’t like anything government has done but you want a second and third helping of the same incompetence.

I’m sorry, but I am the one living in reality. My life and posts are based on empirical evidence you can not refute. Your opinions are shown repeatedly to be in direct denial of evidence.

If basing every post on empirical evidence makes me a conspiracist, what would you call someone like you who presents opinions with no foundation in science? Just curious.

 

Again, the huge problem with this is that the American public is NOWHERE NEAR capable of interpreting actions based on medical facts in such a similar way that it would form a replacement for policy decisions.

And, the public continues to prove that over and over again - including as can be seen on this thread.

ALL the information you have posted has been made available over and over again. And, in my experience that has NOT caused people to make rational decisions on behavior changes in deference to our COVID pandemic. Recommendations that the CDC, WHO and others have made have bee clearly tied to the reason for that behavior.

Ignoring this levell of our science based medicine capability in America is ABSURD. We expect doctors to go beyond giving you the blood workups and images. We DEPEND on them to tell us EXACTLY what that means in terms of what we now NEED TO DO. THAT is a KEY part of their whole reason for BEING there.

Also, you're still dodging the act that actions involve and impact numbers of people - work places, schools, businesses, airline travel, public transportation, etc., etc. It says nothing about hospital and first responder capacity.

The idea that the public is going to come up with better behavior by subtracting leadership just plain makes NO sense.

What is it that has caused you to so monumentally DENY the value of medical science???

 

Yes, I keep up with his content. It’s some of the best on the forum. Because he cares about facts.

The fact remains, I’m correct that the majority of vaccinated individuals are showing sterilizing immunity.

I’ll ask again though since you present this vaccine as relevant to US mask usage, how many doses have been administered in the US?

 

That would be weird, me denying the value of medical science, given that I'm a physician with 40 years of experience, and also a medical scientist (MD-PhD).

Just recently I said that lay people are notorious for making bad decisions regarding risks and health-promoting behaviors.

But I've been talking with @557 that I believe more in catching flies with honey than with vinegar. Masks became so politicized, "MY FREEEEEDOMS" - that I think that instead of mandatory decrees and recommendations that are ALREADY seen with mistrust, it might be interesting to switch gears to an EDUCATIONAL campaign listing the information and asking people to make good decisions.

Remember, that's exactly what the Japanese government did. Result: 97% of the population responded by wearing masks. Sure, its a different culture... but given how divisive this issue has become, maybe we should change the strategy.

When something is not working, you do something different.

Besides, it's the anti-mask people who need to be convinced. The ones who already see the value of masks don't need to be as targeted by this educational campaign I'm talking of.

So, think of it. Do you really think that the anti-mask folks will get convinced by some sort of heavy-handed mandate or even some direct recommendation?

No, they'll rebel more. If there is any chance that they'll change their minds, it's with a more neutral approach that won't trigger their paranoia about being controlled by the government.

 

No. Millions and millions of me that value or freedom over the tyrannical crap Leftists are pushing. This un-American fear mongering targeted at the weak is disgusting.

 

Trump is not responsible for all the blunders made by the federal government in response to the pandemic. I’m not a Trump supporter so this deflection will be useless to you.

The problem is you all think these people and groups gave good advice. They did not.

People aren’t going to follow advice of incompetents and liars. That’s why we need honesty first from government. We don’t have that yet. When we do, then we can move on to other subjects.

What’s your answer, pull a gun on people who don’t follow advice you like?

Not we. You. I’m quite capable of making my own decisions. You could be if you educated yourself instead of appealing to authorities that are demonstrably wrong in case after case.

Like I said, states are the answer, not the federal government.

Let’s remember I’m one of only a small handful of PF members that follows the science on mask recommendations. And I’m also on record repeatedly saying private businesses have the absolute right to require masks in their place of business.

 

Here's a source you can't just run from.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coronavirus-antibodies-last_l_601ab784c5b6c2d891a50298

The MSM is widely ignoring this peer reviewed study.... of course... to keep the sheep living in fear.

 

Ahhhh, you couldn’t ignore me for long. I’m flattered.

I have told you before you are intelligent enough to debate without the ad hominem. I stand by that.

In that spirit, would you like to present any data refuting my posts? Would you like to provide evidence the federal government didn’t louse up testing, mask adoption, mask recommendations, and social distancing recommendations? Would you like to explain how the misinformation I’ve corrected in this thread would be helpful in containing a pandemic if fed to the general public? Would you like to point to specific actions by the US government that were correct and effective?

I understand you lean authoritarian. That’s fine. But we do have rights in the US whether you like them or not. I couldn’t change that even if I wanted to. So forcing people to adopt behaviors with threat of violence won’t fly legally. And what’s more, even if it was legal you would end up killing a lot of people enforcing mitigations.

That’s why the best option is education and HONESTY. Lies and misinformation FROM government are responsible in large part for the scale and duration of the pandemic in the US. Now, in this thread we have people advocating for more lies and misinformation.

Misinformation is not acceptable to me in a free or an authoritarian society. I know I’m in the minority in that belief and am fine with taking arrows for it.

Just a note on the stupidity quote. How do we classify the dead who died from heeding incorrect advice of “experts”? Did they die of their own stupidity for believing misinformation, or did they receive an unjust punishment deserved by those who told them lies?

 

@557 I haven't followed too closely your discussion regarding neutralizing antibodies and the possibility of infection. I've been very busy; today was a busy day and I even brought some work home, and I'm procrastinating instead of getting done with it.

Anyway, from cursory browsing, I'd say that some clarification is in order.

There are two situations in play.

One, someone with a huge titer of neutralizing antibodies, active, fresh, of the kind that hasn't faded yet. If the person gets a whif of the virus, that virus won't stand a chance. As soon as the virus gets in, it will be flooded with antibodies and neutralized. It won't replicate. It won't even get inside the cells to replicate. The odds that this person will be a carrier with enough viral load and shedding to pass the infection on to others are pretty much zero. In a sense, we can say that the person didn't even get infected, although it wouldn't be entirely true to say so, if by infection we understand even the slightest and most transient presence of the virus. But if we adopt a more clinical, less strict view, I'd say that the person didn't get "infected."

Two, someone whose circulating antibodies have faded (after some time went by since natural infection or vaccination). If that person gets a good dose of the virus, that person will indeed become infected. The virus will both circulate, and will get into some cells and will replicate. But that's when macrophages will gobble up circuating viruses and will present the virus to helper T cells that will get activated, and the activated T cells will proliferate into two types: TH1 cells which secrete cytokines that in their turn activate killer (cytotoxic) T cells that will recognize and kill infected host cells, and TH2 which will communicate with circulating B cells which will then become antibody-producing plasma cells (a.k.a. effector B cells). NOW the plasma cells with make neutralizing antibodies, and the host will kill and clear the virus.

This process when it occurs for the first time (when the person first gets the virus or first gets the vaccine), is what is called a primary immune response, and it can take weeks. From the remanants of that response, some B cells become lasting memory B cells and reside in the bone marrow.

When either the natural infection or the vaccine has created memory B cells, the reaction to a subsequent encounter with the virus is called a secondary immune response and it is a lot faster (and stronger); a couple of days for the activated B cells to differentiate into plasma cells and restart antibody production.

Now, what is variable is a vaccine's immunogenicity, as well as the proficiency of the host's immune system, and the degree to which the host possesses circulating B cells, and develops lasting memory B cells.

This is why these vaccines are not 100% protective. They will stimulate the immune system to different degrees, and different people will have a more or less robust response.

So, let's say there was vaccination but with a somewhat pale response (say, because the person is old and infirm - older people have fewer circulating B cells). That person may still benefit from the vaccine... catch the virus, which will reproduce some, and cause, say, mild or moderate disease. The person will then still mount a sufficient defense as above and will clear the virus. But that person may have been a carrier for a while and may have had a sufficient viral load and sufficent viral shedding to pass the virus on to others.

Which is why you see numbers such as 62% efficacy for a vaccine, 86% for another one, 95% for another one... These vaccines will be better or worse at creating a humoral response and a cellular response. So, some vaccines will get close to eliminating the possibility of all infection, some others not as much. And some PEOPLE will have robust immune systems that will produce big and lasting neutralizing titers after vaccination, while others not as much.

This is why it's still possible for a vaccinated person to be contagious. But certainly, the virus will at the very least have a lot more trouble reaching a huge viral load in a vaccinated person, so the vaccines will at the very least decrease the possibility of transmission (when they don't entirely eliminate it). Say, maybe the person will be infectious for a day or two...

Quantifying this (the degree to which a vaccine decreases the possiblity of transmission), is still a bit in the air. Like I said earlier, a recent Oxford study has proposed (indirectly) that their vaccine dampens transmissibility by 67% with a CI of something like 49 to 70 something % (I don't recall the exact numbers; I mentioned them in a recent post, with a link to the study) some 3 weeks after the first dose. It's also been shown that vaccines dramatically decrease viral load even for those who do catch the infection.

It is also promissing that in Israel, the Pfizer vaccine showed ZERO infections among vaccinees after 22 days of the second dose. This suggests a high titer of neutralizing antibodies, which bodes very well for transmissibility.

I don't know of a direct study of transmissibility, yet. I guess some will pop up at some point...

 

It pretty much started when communist infiltrators started tainting our academic system. Everything that came after that was a legacy of breeding leftist ideas among our children and young people.

At this point, the critical race theorists and postmodernists have created generations of pawns. But this is a Western problem overall, not just an American one.

 

Well, more restrictions aren't going to change much.

 

Correct. This is often referred to as sterilizing immunity. That is the term I’m using in this thread.

Agree again. With the caveat memory B cells are routinely found throughout the body in places most likely for antigen to appear, including the spleen, tonsils, and lymph system. This is not sterilizing immunity, but functional immunity.

Yep. And this response may or may not be fast enough to stop shedding of virons capable of causing infection. In theory, if shedding does occur, in these cases of functional immunity the “volume” of shed virus will be greatly diminished as well as the time period of shedding viable virons, as you say below.

An individual’s response to vaccination can be influenced by numerous controllable factors as well, including exercise, nutrition, and stress.

Yes. That’s why I’m bothered by the claims vaccines can’t prevent infection and there is no evidence that they can. Decreasing transmission by infected individuals is important. But sterilizing immunity is “better” and shouldn’t be discounted.

Phizer is studying the prevalence of sterilizing immunity in relation to functional immunity at present. I’m sure the results will be enlightening on transmission. A study on transmission was designed and rejected I think on it’s cost prohibitive nature. I think it’s still looking for funding. It was supposed to involve university students and frequent testing but I can’t remember more than that and can’t find a link right now.

I’m pretty stoked about the Phizer vaccine. It’s more than I’d hoped for. Do you think it’s odd they didn’t test for natural infection (non spike etc) antibodies in phase 3 trials to determine at least an estimate of sterilizing immunity prevalence right off the bat? Just in too much rush maybe.

 

I’m still withholding judgement on the new administration. I’ll give them a fair shake.

I would love to see such a program. The ball is in Biden’s court.

 

I don’t support Big Gov bureaucracies. Such a wasteful idea when you could just put in a mask instead.

I agree with you, though, that it’s sad our government needs to stoop to such a level because some people are selfish pricks.

 

I agree, selfish pricks are forcing those that don't need masks to wear them anyways, because they put themselves above others' freedom.

 

You’re being childish.

 

No. I have the antibodies. There is zero need for me to wear a mask. What you are proposing is anti-Science cowardice.

 

You mean people like you who said that the negative properties of wearing a mask outweigh the positive benefits of wearing a mask?

You are so naive to think that those who don't want to wear a mask today will bother to purchase any other mask other than those cheap "garbage" ones and only because they legally have to wear a mask, yet here you are advising them to consider the risks to themselves on whether to wear a "garbage" mask. If the country followed your plan there would be double the amount of deaths. Why not remove speed limits at the same time. The average Bob in the street will not read up information, they will wear a mask only where the law says they have to. The average Bob in the street think it won't happen to them

You believe that ending the pandemic is not the goal of the federal government and the well being of individual citizens isn’t a priority of the federal government. Ergo, the same applies to the governments of the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Czechia, Portugal, Hungary, bulgaria, Mexico, Iraq, Iran etc,etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Only a conspiracist would believe that all these governments got together to deliver the same message

 

What is your anti-body level now?

 

Evidence to date shows that one in six people who thought they were "immune" because they had the vaccine turned out that they still could transmit the virus to others. AND you will never know if you are that one in six until it happens. Hence masks should still be worn even if you are vaccinated until a pre-determined percentage of the population have been vaccinated at which point we should just bite the bullet and open up completely

 

They could have saved a few hundred thousand people.

Anyway, BC has never had a stay-at-home order and even allows Americans to drive through to and from Alaska through their province even though some of us have taken advantage of their generosity by breaking their rules.

 

Why are you peddling this nonsense when there is no way of knowing how long immunity lasts or if you're reinfected with a variant?