Coronavirus and You - Page 440
Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
https://globalnews.ca/news/8133780/bc-proof-vaccination-program/ Indoor ticketed sporting events Indoor concerts Indoor theatre/dance/symphony events Restaurants (indoor and patio dining) Nightclubs Casinos Movie theatres Fitness centres/gyms (excluding youth recreational sport) Businesses offering indoor high-intensity group exercise activities Organized indoor events (eg. weddings, parties, conferences, meetings, workshops) Discretionary organized indoor group recreational classes and activities Basically almost every public non-essential indoor activity will require vaccination. Notably there are no exemptions, with the reasoning that anybody who is medically(or religiously) unable to be vaccinated should not partake in activities which are considered higher risk. I'm perfectly happy to live my life with other vaccinated people. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On August 24 2021 09:37 JimmiC wrote: Look at that a bunch of people in here were worried about air ventilation and science to rescue with a DIY. For those extra concerned you can make them and bring them into the classrooms yourselves! https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2021/08/17/diy-air-filters-for-classrooms-experts-are-enthusiastic-and-a-citizen-scientist-makes-it-easy That's a great design. Love the practicality and cost efficiency. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Nikon
Bulgaria5710 Posts
On August 23 2021 02:13 JimmiC wrote: The 3 part is one I disagree with because having recovered from covid has shown very little protection against delta, but that was not really known at the time, im curious if it will change. The bolded part is extremely hard to execute well where being vaccinated is super simple. We know how effecitive vaccination is at keeping people out of the hospital and morgue. A couple of stats previously posted from southern US states. 50% under 40 getting admited to hospital, 28% admitted under 17, 96% hospitalized not vaccinated. The vaccination rates of the older high risk groups are actually decent which is why the % skew so much differently then before. If naturtal immunity offers no protection against Delta, I'm sceptical that people that have vaccinated previously would have better protection either. We see it every year during flu season, where reimmunisations happen. But that's another conversation. As for the 96% of hospitalisations are non-vaccinated, I'm wondering if you have statistics on how many of those 96% have underlying medical conditions that put them at risk, because I'm willing to bet that 90% of them are in a risk group. | ||
112StaminaX
37 Posts
| ||
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On August 24 2021 15:51 Nikon wrote: If naturtal immunity offers no protection against Delta, I'm sceptical that people that have vaccinated previously would have better protection either. We see it every year during flu season, where reimmunisations happen. But that's another conversation. As for the 96% of hospitalisations are non-vaccinated, I'm wondering if you have statistics on how many of those 96% have underlying medical conditions that put them at risk, because I'm willing to bet that 90% of them are in a risk group. Vaccination has been shown to provide a stronger immune response than natural infection. Given that you need two shots for good protection against Delta, it stands to reason that a prior infection would be roughly similar to only getting the first shot, which is only minorly effective. Given that the entire population can be divided into un/partial/fully vaccinated, it's fairly safe to say that pre-existing conditions will be pretty equally divided between the groups. If anything, those with preexisting conditions would be more likely to seek out vaccines to try to protect themselves. I'm still going to use Ontario as a guideline because they release good datasets, are basically 100% Delta, and the percentages haven't changed over the last few weeks. For fully vaccinated people, you are 86% less likely to be infected 92% less likely to be hospitalized 95% less likely to be in the ICU There are zero non-medical related reasons to not vaccination. | ||
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
On August 24 2021 03:21 Mohdoo wrote: Notice how you don't back up a single thing you said? This feels like whiny dribble. Magic did a good job at pointing out why this is ridiculous. Not really. To change someones mind you should provide some things that changes minds. But it is all the same yadayada. Seriously, it is just a cost-benefit equation! How about we all wear _this_ to go to the supermarket? I'm quite sure, it is very safe and infection risk is absolutely minimal! ... What do you say? That is "overkill" and not neccessary? Oh, ok, who says, that FFP2 is not overkill? You? Your government, because those are the "galaxy brains"!? In comparison to all the non-galaxy-brains from basically all other countries in the world? "We are the best"!? Sure thing... Yes, also surgical masks have a recommended amount of time to wear them. And this time is _longer_, that's the point here! Actually not that much more... 120min to 75min! https://www.haufe.de/arbeitsschutz/sicherheit/wie-lange-sollte-eine-schutzmaske-maximal-getragen-werden_96_516946.html btw. I citate a sub-headline there: FFP2-Masken erschweren das Atmen (translation: FFP2 masks make breathing more difficult) The "funny" thing is, that if I visit a customer, I'm expected to wear a mask all the time! So, longer than 2h! So bad all over... but I use a cloth mask for these occasions! And not once did a customer tell me to switch masks - and yes most of my customers are in Bavaria! Maybe we are all crazy, could be. I like crazy people! | ||
Magic Powers
Austria4216 Posts
On August 24 2021 16:52 Geisterkarle wrote: Not really. To change someones mind you should provide some things that changes minds. But it is all the same yadayada. Seriously, it is just a cost-benefit equation! How about we all wear _this_ to go to the supermarket? I'm quite sure, it is very safe and infection risk is absolutely minimal! ... What do you say? That is "overkill" and not neccessary? Oh, ok, who says, that FFP2 is not overkill? You? Your government, because those are the "galaxy brains"!? In comparison to all the non-galaxy-brains from basically all other countries in the world? "We are the best"!? Sure thing... Yes, also surgical masks have a recommended amount of time to wear them. And this time is _longer_, that's the point here! Actually not that much more... 120min to 75min! https://www.haufe.de/arbeitsschutz/sicherheit/wie-lange-sollte-eine-schutzmaske-maximal-getragen-werden_96_516946.html btw. I citate a sub-headline there: FFP2-Masken erschweren das Atmen (translation: FFP2 masks make breathing more difficult) The "funny" thing is, that if I visit a customer, I'm expected to wear a mask all the time! So, longer than 2h! So bad all over... but I use a cloth mask for these occasions! And not once did a customer tell me to switch masks - and yes most of my customers are in Bavaria! Maybe we are all crazy, could be. I like crazy people! Commonly used FFP2 masks without filter do not cause any breathing issues, certainly not the ones sold in drug stores. That's because without a filter they're not perfectly sealed (more accurately: very poorly sealed, or not sealed at all), so the air can escape through various openings at once. This is also why that type of mask is used to protect others, and not yourself (although there's a minor level of protection for the wearer, too). It wraps around your face more than a surgical mask does and the material is better, so it blocks droplets very effectively despite having several openings. I've talked to a pharmacist about masks. The recommendation from one of them is to wear an FFP2 mask for an absolute maximum of 8 hours (not recommended, only a few hours is better) before disposing of it. It can be reused if it hasn't been worn for long by hanging it up to dry (ideally after treating it with a few sprays of an alcohol solution) and waiting a few days while cycling through fresh masks. To the 75 minute limit and 30 minute breaks: that recommendation has been lifted in Germany. You're free to choose for yourself if you can wear a mask for a longer duration or not. The medical community is not up in arms about people wearing masks for too long, and it's because there's no threat to the health from masking up for a long time. What you may be thinking of are masks with a filter. Those do in fact make breathing more difficult, because they're supposed to be sealed. They're also not generally recommended though, unless for example you're cleaning up in a hazardous environment. From my own experience I can say the biggest problem about masking up is not health or money - it's actually communication. I have more trouble understanding what people say or feel because I get almost no facial clues. The mask itself is not an issue for me and it never really was (with the exception of low quality masks giving me rashes on the ears). I can wear it for several hours without any problems, I can even go running with it. As I said mask quality has improved dramatically. In fact in regards to physical exercise I consider FFP2 masks to be a whole lot better (compared to surgical masks), because the more rigid material prevents it better from sealing around my mouth during heavy breathing. Lastly, and this might be the most important point: it makes absolutely no sense to argue against FFP2 but in favor of surgical. In terms of comfort or breathability they're very similar, but the protection level is very significantly greater with FFP2. Edit: Here's also a fact checking link in regards to claims about mask efficacy and recommendations. The guidelines actually state that up to 8 hours shifts with just a single FFP2 mask are fine, so I'm actually on the more cautious side while the experts quite clearly aren't as concerned. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2021/01/27/schutz-vor-corona-oder-risiko-fuenf-behauptungen-ueber-ffp2-masken-im-faktencheck/ | ||
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On August 24 2021 17:38 Magic Powers wrote: Commonly used FFP2 masks without filter do not cause any breathing issues, certainly not the ones sold in drug stores. That's because without a filter they're not perfectly sealed (more accurately: very poorly sealed, or not sealed at all), so the air can escape through various openings at once. This is also why that type of mask is used to protect others, and not yourself (although there's a minor level of protection for the wearer, too). It wraps around your face more than a surgical mask does and the material is better, so it blocks droplets very effectively despite having several openings. I've talked to a pharmacist about masks. The recommendation from one of them is to wear an FFP2 mask for an absolute maximum of 8 hours (not recommended, only a few hours is better) before disposing of it. It can be reused if it hasn't been worn for long by hanging it up to dry (ideally after treating it with a few sprays of an alcohol solution) and waiting a few days while cycling through fresh masks. To the 75 minute limit and 30 minute breaks: that recommendation has been lifted in Germany. You're free to choose for yourself if you can wear a mask for a longer duration or not. The medical community is not up in arms about people wearing masks for too long, and it's because there's no threat to the health from masking up for a long time. What you may be thinking of are masks with a filter. Those do in fact make breathing more difficult, because they're supposed to be sealed. They're also not generally recommended though, unless for example you're cleaning up in a hazardous environment. From my own experience I can say the biggest problem about masking up is not health or money - it's actually communication. I have more trouble understanding what people say or feel because I get almost no facial clues. The mask itself is not an issue for me and it never really was (with the exception of low quality masks giving me rashes on the ears). I can wear it for several hours without any problems, I can even go running with it. As I said mask quality has improved dramatically. In fact in regards to physical exercise I consider FFP2 masks to be a whole lot better (compared to surgical masks), because the more rigid material prevents it better from sealing around my mouth during heavy breathing. Lastly, and this might be the most important point: it makes absolutely no sense to argue against FFP2 but in favor of surgical. In terms of comfort or breathability they're very similar, but the protection level is very significantly greater with FFP2. Edit: Here's also a fact checking link in regards to claims about mask efficacy and recommendations. The guidelines actually state that up to 8 hours shifts with just a single FFP2 mask are fine, so I'm actually on the more cautious side while the experts quite clearly aren't as concerned. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2021/01/27/schutz-vor-corona-oder-risiko-fuenf-behauptungen-ueber-ffp2-masken-im-faktencheck/ Yes, I have exclusively chosen FFP2 masks since they became available (the price is basically the only argument I see but I am provided the masks by my employer) not only because they are better but also because in my personal experience they are less annoying to wear. Especially when partnered with glasses. You need to wear them correctly of course which is were many people already fail. | ||
Silvanel
Poland4731 Posts
On August 24 2021 16:20 112StaminaX wrote: i caught it in may, used to run triathlons, now i can barely breate after 30 mins of ANY of the drills/training sessions i used to do. Just thought id share. I ran a sub 20 min 5k, cant get lower than 26 and believe me it feels like ive never ran as hard. im not a happy camper right now. Feels bad man. This kind of side effect is something serious and have huge impact on people life, but many brushes it as nonissue. If You didn't die, it doesn't matter if You got sick... | ||
r00ty
Germany1056 Posts
On August 24 2021 16:20 112StaminaX wrote: i caught it in may, used to run triathlons, now i can barely breate after 30 mins of ANY of the drills/training sessions i used to do. Just thought id share. I ran a sub 20 min 5k, cant get lower than 26 and believe me it feels like ive never ran as hard. im not a happy camper right now. Sad to hear that. As far as i'm aware, "long term covid" is quite the unknown so far. Hope it will get better and you'll fully recover. Avoided Covid, but unfortunately had some side effects from the vaccine (Biontech). My herpes zoster (shingles sounds so derogatory ._o) on my forehead broke out again after the first shot, which can occur with every other vaccination as well. And even though it is now visible on my face and the nerve pains are always pretty uncomfortable to say the least, i'd never hesitate to get the vaccine again, even in hindsight. I prefer to be less pretty, but alive with my lungs intact. | ||
Nikon
Bulgaria5710 Posts
On August 24 2021 16:37 Amui wrote: Vaccination has been shown to provide a stronger immune response than natural infection. Given that you need two shots for good protection against Delta, it stands to reason that a prior infection would be roughly similar to only getting the first shot, which is only minorly effective. This is just untrue. You need two shots for some of the vaccines specifically because they don't trigger a full immune system response. I don't know that vaccinations have been shown to provide stronger immune response system, particularly given that the majority of individuals who contracted covid never made it to a hospital because they didn't need to. On August 24 2021 16:37 Amui wrote: Given that the entire population can be divided into un/partial/fully vaccinated, it's fairly safe to say that pre-existing conditions will be pretty equally divided between the groups. If anything, those with preexisting conditions would be more likely to seek out vaccines to try to protect themselves. You would think so. I still think that closely examining the numbers is going to reveal that the majority of patients are from an at-risk group regardless. Which is really concerning, considering the guy I was replying to cited 96% unvaccinated inpatient. On August 24 2021 16:37 Amui wrote: I'm still going to use Ontario as a guideline because they release good datasets, are basically 100% Delta, and the percentages haven't changed over the last few weeks. For fully vaccinated people, you are 86% less likely to be infected 92% less likely to be hospitalized 95% less likely to be in the ICU There are zero non-medical related reasons to not vaccination. That would be a good point if I was arguing that the vaccine didn't work at all. I'm pretty sure it works, and I've been saying that vaccinating if you're at-risk is a must. What I'm saying is that vaccinating people who are not in one of these groups is not going to be an effective measure. Especially if those aforementioned at-risk groups actually do not get vaccinated. | ||
maybenexttime
Poland5595 Posts
| ||
Nikon
Bulgaria5710 Posts
| ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Nikon
Bulgaria5710 Posts
Just FYI the studies on vaccine efficiency are done on people from risk groups - people that SHOULD vaccinate according to both of us. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
maybenexttime
Poland5595 Posts
On August 24 2021 22:26 Nikon wrote: Oh yeah, because you cite anything. Just FYI the studies on vaccine efficiency are done on people from risk groups - people that SHOULD vaccinate according to both of us. That is patently false. You can read the paper on phase 3 clinical trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine here. Care to explain how the trial was done on people from risk groups? The participants had a median age of 52 years, 35% were obese and 21% had at least one coexisting condition (meaning that 79% had none). Immunocompromised people were excluded from the trial. | ||
| ||