Poll of the Day > So now even the liberals are going around without masks or social distancing???

(+) Yeah! (+)

What the fuck is going on? They do realize that this thing didn't just...disappear, right?

If you have had your second dose and wait 2 weeks you are highly unlikely to infect others even if you just huff into each other's faces

---

It is a possibility though so they are saying ehhh were willing to take the risk meanwhile the last year they were willing to take no risks what so ever

---

Lokarin posted...

If you have had your second dose and wait 2 weeks you are highly unlikely to infect others even if you just huff into each other's faces

Okay, but what about me? I don't want to be infected either. (I am fully vaxxed).

If you are fully vaccinated then certain activities and locations the cdc is saying it is safe to go without a mask.

schools nursing homes Medical facilities public transportation and similar high risk locations are still reccomended to wear masks and social distance.

this is following the science that increasingly shows the vaccines overall effectiveness.

---

most of us have been vaccinated, ok?

i mean, are you paying attention to any of the news, or just whatever is around you?

---

Lokarin posted...

If you have had your second dose and wait 2 weeks you are highly unlikely to infect others even if you just huff into each other's faces

Sweet!! We can get back to face huffing!! About time:)

---

If youre fully vaccinated you dont need to wear a mask.

You still can if you want to, but it is not necessary.

---

Tomorrow I'm getting my second shot, which means I'm going to lick so many doornobs.

So far the people I've seen going around without masks are likely not liberal or vaccinated. I am being 100% judgmental in my determination of those things though.

ya, people should probably still wear masks in public just for solidarity even though they no longer need them

---

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Okay, but what about me? I don't want to be infected either. (I am fully vaxxed).

Your chance of getting infected after getting vaccinated is like .008%.

Stop being a bitch

---

Smarkil posted...

Your chance of getting infected after getting vaccinated is like .008%.

The most effective vaccines are in the 95% efficacy range. Some are as low as 60%. There also remains the very real possibility of new variants bypassing vaccines and proliferating among populations that aren't practicing any other measures because they're vaccinated. Given the negligible cost of wearing a mask (oh no it's slightly uncomfortable), erring on the side of caution until case numbers get much lower isn't altogether unreasonable.

---

Two people who have been vaccinated can now spit into each other's mouths. In fact, it is required in many cases.

adjl posted...

The most effective vaccines are in the 95% efficacy range. Some are as low as 60%. There also remains the very real possibility of new variants bypassing vaccines and proliferating among populations that aren't practicing any other measures because they're vaccinated. Given the negligible cost of wearing a mask (oh no it's slightly uncomfortable), erring on the side of caution until case numbers get much lower isn't altogether unreasonable.

Sorry, I'm following the CDC. I'm a believer in science.

Regardless of the CDC instruction; infection after vaccination is much more mild regardless of the current slew of variants. As of today, a total of 223 people have died after getting vaccinated. That's 223 out of hundreds of millions in the US. 0.00000223. And I'm sure those 223 were probably severely compromised to begin with.

He'll be fine. He doesn't need to get his underwear up his ass because some people aren't wearing masks.

---

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30
---

Smarkil posted...

Sorry, I'm following the CDC. I'm a believer in science.

Okay? That still doesn't mean that 100-95=0.008. Furthermore, the "science" you're so keen on merely states that vaccinated people are okay without masks, indicating that they don't pose a significant transmission risk (masks have always been more about preventing transmission than personal protection). It does not say that unvaccinated people are fine to go maskless around vaccinated people.

Smarkil posted...

Regardless of the CDC instruction; infection after vaccination is much more mild regardless of the current slew of variants.

The current slew of variants, yes. Potential future variants that aren't prevented by the vaccine? Less so. There's certainly no guarantee that such variants will emerge, but why increase that risk by giving them the opportunity to breed?

Smarkil posted...

As of today, a total of 223 people have died after getting vaccinated. That's 223 out of hundreds of millions in the US. 0.00000223. And I'm sure those 223 were probably severely compromised to begin with.

That's... not how you pick a denominator for determining probability. You also can't look at current rates and use that to predict the rates that will be seen once current precautions are lifted. Not without substantially more complex analyses than that, anyway.

Smarkil posted...

He'll be fine. He doesn't need to get his underwear up his ass because some people aren't wearing masks.

At the beginning of April, Nova Scotia was running less than 10 new cases per day. About a month ago, a family came here from Ontario and ignored the self-isolation requirements imposed on out-of-province travellers so they could go to a party with some people here. On April 17, we had had 1800 cases since the pandemic began. Yesterday, that total had reached 4736. We went from being generally pretty unrestricted (masks indoors, distancing recommendations, no giant parties, but otherwise life more or less as normal) to being fully locked down in a desperate scramble to get the largest outbreak of the pandemic under control, all because a handful of jackasses thought they were too good for the rules.

There's more than personal risk involved in this. This outbreak isn't particularly dangerous to me, but I am affected by what has to happen to keep it from getting out of control. I have every reason to be angry at people who unnecessarily risk outbreaks that will affect me.

---

adjl posted...

Okay? That still doesn't mean that 100-95=0.008. Furthermore, the "science" you're so keen on merely states that vaccinated people are okay without masks, indicating that they don't pose a significant transmission risk (masks have always been more about preventing transmission than personal protection). It does not say that unvaccinated people are fine to go maskless around vaccinated people.

I mean, it pretty literally does. If the CDC says you don't have to wear a mask indoors or outdoors, that kinda implies that you're going to be around unvaccinated people at some point. Quid pro quo, I'm right.

adjl posted...

The current slew of variants, yes. Potential future variants that aren't prevented by the vaccine? Less so. There's certainly no guarantee that such variants will emerge, but why increase that risk by giving them the opportunity to breed?

There's no guarantee you're not gonna get your dick lopped off the next time you run a lawn mower. That doesn't mean you're going to stop mowing the lawn. But we make informed decisions about what we do in our day to day life.

I trust the CDC to make informed judgements. Not random people who want to feel better. Whatever they want to do above and beyond CDC recs is on them.

adjl posted...

That's... not how you pick a denominator for determining probability. You also can't look at current rates and use that to predict the rates that will be seen once current precautions are lifted. Not without substantially more complex analyses than that, anyway

It's literally exactly how you do it. That's how statistics work friendo. If they come out with better data, great. Until then, .0000023

adjl posted...

At the beginning of April, Nova Scotia was running less than 10 new cases per day. About a month ago, a family came here from Ontario and ignored the self-isolation requirements imposed on out-of-province travellers so they could go to a party with some people here. On April 17, we had had 1800 cases since the pandemic began. Yesterday, that total had reached 4736. We went from being generally pretty unrestricted (masks indoors, distancing recommendations, no giant parties, but otherwise life more or less as normal) to being fully locked down in a desperate scramble to get the largest outbreak of the pandemic under control, all because a handful of jackasses thought they were too good for the rules.

There's more than personal risk involved in this. This outbreak isn't particularly dangerous to me, but I am affected by what has to happen to keep it from getting out of control. I have every reason to be angry at people who unnecessarily risk outbreaks that will affect me.

Were those people vaccinated? No? Then who cares? If you, as a vaccinated person, want to hide in your basement for the rest of your life, that's fine. Go for it fam. I've trusted the CDC, ya know the people who make this their entire lives work, to give me instruction on how I should or should not live mine. If they come back and say I gotta start masking up everywhere as a vaccinated person again, then I'll do it. In fact, I still mask up even if I'm not asked to.

I don't know why you guys get up your ass about 'the science' and then the second it says something you disagree with, you decide it's not worth listening to anymore.

---

just because you're vaccinated doesn't mean you won't get sick. It also doesn't mean you won't die from the sickness.

Smarkil posted...

I mean, it pretty literally does. If the CDC says you don't have to wear a mask indoors or outdoors, that kinda implies that you're going to be around unvaccinated people at some point.

It says absolutely nothing about whether or not unvaccinated people need to wear masks. Nothing about what the CDC stated implies that they are taking unmasked, unvaccinated people into account.

Smarkil posted...

Quid pro quo, I'm right.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "quod erat demonstrandum," commonly abbreviated as QED.

Smarkil posted...

There's no guarantee you're not gonna get your dick lopped off the next time you run a lawn mower. That doesn't mean you're going to stop mowing the lawn. But we make informed decisions about what we do in our day to day life.

The odds of a vaccine-resistant variant arising are quite a bit higher than the odds of my dick being lopped off by any lawnmower that's legal to sell, and refusing to mow the lawn ever again is a considerably greater cost than continuing to wear a mask. That's really not an example of comparably sensible risk analysis.

Smarkil posted...

It's literally exactly how you do it. That's how statistics work friendo. If they come out with better data, great. Until then, .0000023

That's not remotely how you do it. For starters, the population of the US is 328 million, and there's really no operation you can perform between 223 and 328 million to get 0.00000223. If you're looking just at fully vaccinated people, that number is still 123 million, which also isn't a simple power of 10. Furthermore, that number is quite meaningless without also providing the context of the overall covid death rate. With that in mind:

223/123M = 0.00018% of vaccinated people dying of Covid
584K/328M = 0.18% of Americans overall dying of Covid

So 99.9% less likely to die of Covid once vaccinated. 100-99.9 is still not 0.008%. Imagine that!

More significantly, those statistics are based on current observations, which means current precautions are in effect. Eschewing masks changes a major variable there, and can be expected to cause both rates to increase (since, as we all know, telling vaccinated people they don't need masks will lead to fewer unvaccinated people wearing them). To that end, you really can't extrapolate the current data and assume it will remain the same. That you don't have more relevant data doesn't mean you can ignore that and use something that you know doesn't work, it means you have to accept that you don't have relevant data and act in accordance with that ignorance.

Smarkil posted...

Were those people vaccinated? No? Then who cares?

The people affected by the lockdown measures needed to get the outbreak under control (which is everybody, regardless of how well they've been complying with measures to date or their vaccination status). Like I explicitly said. There's more than just personal health at stake here.

Smarkil posted...

I've trusted the CDC, ya know the people who make this their entire lives work, to give me instruction on how I should or should not live mine. If they come back and say I gotta start masking up everywhere as a vaccinated person again, then I'll do it. In fact, I still mask up even if I'm not asked to.

That's all well and good, but a good many people don't feel that way. There are people who have spent most of the past year insisting that the CDC doesn't know what they're talking about because they changed their minds on whether or not masks were beneficial early on. Those are not people that will happily comply if the CDC says masks are needed again, which means saying they aren't needed now is irresponsible and stands a good chance of leading to worse outcomes further down the road.

Smarkil posted...

I don't know why you guys get up your ass about 'the science' and then the second it says something you disagree with, you decide it's not worth listening to anymore.

It's not that the science is wrong or not worth listening to, it's that announcing the science now - so long before decent vaccination rates have been achieved and without any sort of process by which maskless people can have their vaccination status verified - is irresponsibly premature. Unvaccinated people will abuse this by lying about being vaccinated to get out of wearing a mask. We've already seen this with every "I'm mEdIcAlLy eXeMpT!" idiot people have had to deal with for the past year. Local governments can choose to ignore the new guidelines, but compliance rates are going to suffer regardless of that and there will be even more political pressure to lift them than there already was.

I'm sure the medicine is sound. The sociology, however, is not. Everything we've seen over the past year has told us that trusting people to interpret and use this information sensibly is a mistake. Erring on the side of caution - both medically and socially - by simply continuing to require masks everywhere would have been the better approach by far. This approach will almost certainly result in unnecessary outbreaks.

---

Smarkil posted...

Quid pro quo, I'm right.

>.<
---

Yes... Squid Pro Row

---