Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he say this before any efficacy data had been released?
1 Like
Oof what a terrible statement.
I think most people can agree that the messaging coming from the government throughout this whole thing has been downright awful.
2 Likes
Do you mean before any mask efficacy data was released? 
Yes
But I assume you mean before vaccine efficacy data. Yes, he was making assumptions about how effective the vaccines might be.
I’m just pointing this out as one of many examples (this may be the worst, but there are more) of the overselling of masks, which could lead people to put themselves in situations they shouldn’t because “my mask protects you.”
By the way, I only included the transcript of the portion of testimony that was in the short video I had linked. Apparently he went on to explicitly state his assumptions of efficacy (~70%), which means he might think masks are comparable or better than the J&J jab?
(Don’t judge the source - it was the first hit in my Google search for the transcript)
What does the data look like for those who have never had COVID - is there an age group where the risk from the vaccine is higher than the risk of getting COVID?
I may have had a 3-5% chance of hospitalization from COVID. Maybe it is lower due to lower than average comorbidities. Even a 1-2% chance of going to the hospital is enough for me say getting a vaccine is no-brainer.
I have a 30 something coworker who had COVID months ago and her sense of smell is really messed and foods she loved are now disgusting. I think at this point, most people probably know a few people with similar stories regarding taste/smell.
1 Like
And that’s perfectly reasonable, but these are risk tolerance decisions. Maybe I’m OK with a 1-2% hospital risk.
1 Like
So a 10 month old speculative statement?
I’m not saying it’s not crap, but I’ve literally not ever heard anyone give that as a reason to not be vaccinated. This is the first time I’d heard anything like that.
Now you have.
Agreed, but usually when you are making a decision on how much risk you are taking, there is usually some sort of reward involved. Is it the 30 minutes you don’t spend getting the vaccine? Is it risk of side effects form the vaccine (I felt crappy for 12 hours, but it was something I sort of anticipated could happen and planned as if it would happen)? Some fear or a greater risk that you will have taking the vaccine?
80% chance of messing up my senses for a month or longer?
https://www.vumc.org/coronavirus/latest-news/five-things-know-about-smell-and-taste-loss-covid-19
Sounds awful.
We do mandate schoolchildren to be vaccinated against an illness that typically only causes mild symptoms to them personally, but to prevent birth defects or miscarriage or stillbirth if a pregnant person contracts it.
What freedoms are we talking about? Vaccination? Masks? Occupancy limits? Because it seems like it keeps changing during this conversation.
Which was made before efficacy of either was known?
I admit I have a different perspective than many other people here. I’m so f***ing tired of COVID.
3 Likes
I have no desire to defend Redfield and IANAV(irologist), but immunogenicity =|= efficacy. With that nuance, I’m not sure it’s quite as bad as you’ve presented it to be.
You said you had never heard the claim. Ever.
I provided an example of someone making that claim.
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
Throughout the pandemic, masks & mask mandates have been promoted far beyond what little efficacy the scant data might support. I gave one example of such hyperbolic language. You can split hairs about the timing of that one statement, but there have been others very similar. The effect of overstating the efficacy of masks is that people put others unnecessarily at risk because they think “my mask protects you,” instead of just staying home or keeping their distance.
The lack of clear data on their efficacy raises serious questions about whether they should be mandated in light of the clear downsides of healthy people wearing masks everywhere.
That’s fair. IANAV. I’m sure it’s actually much less nuanced than you’re giving me credit for.
I’m tired so maybe I’m missing what you’re advocating, because I thought you also thought social distancing and such was also useless. And what’s the solution to those who can’t WFH or keep distant from others?
If you were in charge, what would you do? Because all I see is you pissing on about every mitigation idea.
2 Likes
The masks that fit me well are Vera Bradley. I buy them locally but they may be available online.
Whaaaaaat? You finally opened your eyes or something?
The whole 6-foot “social distance” thing (or is it 3 feet, or 1 meter?) is garbage that relied on the assumption that transmission was through droplets rather than aerosols. With aerosols, like DTNF often says, it’s about whether you’re sharing air with others. Dilution (e.g. being outside or opening windows) or filtration helps. Most masks (with the possible exception of fitted respirators) don’t really filter much of the aerosols - they redirect it, as anyone with glasses knows too well. I suppose if someone is sick and absolutely can’t stay home, a face covering may be better than nothing, but giving people unfounded confidence in masks so that they don’t isolate when sick is risky & harmful. Masks (or, again, anything short of a fitted respirator) on healthy people are worse than useless, because of the associated harms (physical, social, & psychological).
You added the question of what I would do if I were in charge…
I would probably have listened to the experts who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, which reads, in part:
This was also written before vaccines were available. I know that, for example, Martin Kulldorff (one of the GBD authors) is very pro-vaccines for the at-risk population but he does not think they are necessary (or at least through EUA) for children.
2 Likes
