Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[dkabq]

Fauci says large holiday gatherings not safe — even with booster
https://thehill.com/homenews/coronavirus-report/587061-fauci-says-large-holiday-gatherings-not-safe-even-with-booster

Should I take this to mean that there is no going back to pre-covid normal?

That's one of the few areas where I agree with him. It's pretty clear that a disproportionate amount of transmission occurs because of superspreader events, and 30 to 50 is a lot of people. And it's a recommendation, not a mandate.

"There are many of these parties that have 30, 40, 50 people in which you do not know the vaccination status of individuals," he said. "Those are the kind of functions in the context of Omicron that you do not want to go to." --St Fauci

So he is effectively admitting that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid.

[Pat]

Fauci says large holiday gatherings not safe — even with booster
https://thehill.com/homenews/coronavirus-report/587061-fauci-says-large-holiday-gatherings-not-safe-even-with-booster

Should I take this to mean that there is no going back to pre-covid normal?

That's one of the few areas where I agree with him. It's pretty clear that a disproportionate amount of transmission occurs because of superspreader events, and 30 to 50 is a lot of people. And it's a recommendation, not a mandate.

"There are many of these parties that have 30, 40, 50 people in which you do not know the vaccination status of individuals," he said. "Those are the kind of functions in the context of Omicron that you do not want to go to." --St Fauci

So he is effectively admitting that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid.

That's widely known.

[dkabq]

Fauci says large holiday gatherings not safe — even with booster
https://thehill.com/homenews/coronavirus-report/587061-fauci-says-large-holiday-gatherings-not-safe-even-with-booster

Should I take this to mean that there is no going back to pre-covid normal?

That's one of the few areas where I agree with him. It's pretty clear that a disproportionate amount of transmission occurs because of superspreader events, and 30 to 50 is a lot of people. And it's a recommendation, not a mandate.

"There are many of these parties that have 30, 40, 50 people in which you do not know the vaccination status of individuals," he said. "Those are the kind of functions in the context of Omicron that you do not want to go to." --St Fauci

So he is effectively admitting that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid.

That's widely known.

Ok. And are we all in agreement that the vaccine also does not prevent you from transmitting covid?

So the take-away has to be that large gatherings will be recommended against forever (does that include restaurants with 30+ seats, and if not, why not)? And if not, what is the end-game?

Note, I am not taking a shot at you with this, rather I am interested in seeing the thoughts of the collective.

[Pat]

The vaccines don't prevent transmission, but that's a null argument. Nobody seems to disagree on that topic.

When it comes to sars2, very few interventions seem to work. Locking down borders, combined with quarantines for new arrivals, and aggressive contact tracing when cases do slip through, is one. But that only works for island nations that can completely control their borders. The contact tracing part also only works when there is no community transmission. If you contain any new outbreaks, and identify every single person who was infected, then you can stop the spread. But if you find a single case that you can't trace back to a new arrival, then you've lost control and the virus will spread in invisible chains of transmission until it becomes endemic, regardless of what you do. But even this solution isn't viable in the long term, because shutting your borders permanently will wreck your economy.

Shutting down large gatherings is another intervention that seems to work. This is because a very high proportion of covid-19 cases can be linked back to superspreader events, where numerous people are infected and then carry the disease back home. Because of the highly aerosolized nature of the disease, most superspreader events are indoors. In other words, in areas where the air is relatively still, allowing tiny droplets with viral loads to build up in high concentrations, over tens of minute or hours. In addition, most of the superspreader events involve some kind of talking or singing, because open mouths lead to more of these tiny droplets being emitted. It's very clear that infection, and the severity of the infection, is related to viral loads. High concentrations lead to increased numbers of infections, and worse outcomes.

Conversely, events held outdoors present very little risk, because the constant natural airflow prevents the particles from building up. Though this isn't really a practical solution in the northern hemisphere in winter. Also, there have been very few cases of transmission in airplanes, apparently because of the lack of talking and constant recirculation of the air. Another surprising example is the high speed trains in Japan, where people are packed together. It's speculation, but lack of transmission may be due to cultural mores against talking on mass transit.

Despite a lot of panicked public health messaging, bars didn't turn out to a major driver of transmission. Cases certainly happened, but not to degree many expected. Supermarkets were also very low risk. These may be due to turnover. It's the concentration of the tiny particles that linger in the air for hours that causes most infections, not casual exposure. People didn't stay in one place long enough for the particles to build up.

Thus, large indoor family gatherings are a risk, because they tend to be fairly lengthy affairs, in closed in areas with little air circulation, and lots of socialization. But with all things, risk assessment is personal. Excluding grandma isn't good, because of social isolation and rejection. But having smaller events when you have a lot of elderly relatives might make sense.

But this is only a temporary solution. The virus is endemic. It's going to spread everywhere, regardless of what you do. But you can slow it down a bit, or spread out sharp peaks over longer periods of time, which might be useful to prevent hospitals from being overloaded. But there's been so much disinformation on that particular topic, it's reasonable to be skeptical.

[Kiero]

I cannot find that quote in the article.

Sorry, my bad, that was from the comments. Post removed.

[Kiero]

So he is effectively admitting that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid.

That's self-evident from the widespread reports of people triple-jabbed, yet repeatedly infected. It doesn't prevent infection, doesn't prevent transmission, doesn't reduce viral load.

What "protection" are they providing exactly?

[3catcircus]

The vaccines don't prevent transmission, but that's a null argument. Nobody seems to disagree on that topic.

When it comes to sars2, very few interventions seem to work. Locking down borders, combined with quarantines for new arrivals, and aggressive contact tracing when cases do slip through, is one. But that only works for island nations that can completely control their borders. The contact tracing part also only works when there is no community transmission. If you contain any new outbreaks, and identify every single person who was infected, then you can stop the spread. But if you find a single case that you can't trace back to a new arrival, then you've lost control and the virus will spread in invisible chains of transmission until it becomes endemic, regardless of what you do. But even this solution isn't viable in the long term, because shutting your borders permanently will wreck your economy.

Shutting down large gatherings is another intervention that seems to work. This is because a very high proportion of covid-19 cases can be linked back to superspreader events, where numerous people are infected and then carry the disease back home. Because of the highly aerosolized nature of the disease, most superspreader events are indoors. In other words, in areas where the air is relatively still, allowing tiny droplets with viral loads to build up in high concentrations, over tens of minute or hours. In addition, most of the superspreader events involve some kind of talking or singing, because open mouths lead to more of these tiny droplets being emitted. It's very clear that infection, and the severity of the infection, is related to viral loads. High concentrations lead to increased numbers of infections, and worse outcomes.

Conversely, events held outdoors present very little risk, because the constant natural airflow prevents the particles from building up. Though this isn't really a practical solution in the northern hemisphere in winter. Also, there have been very few cases of transmission in airplanes, apparently because of the lack of talking and constant recirculation of the air. Another surprising example is the high speed trains in Japan, where people are packed together. It's speculation, but lack of transmission may be due to cultural mores against talking on mass transit.

Despite a lot of panicked public health messaging, bars didn't turn out to a major driver of transmission. Cases certainly happened, but not to degree many expected. Supermarkets were also very low risk. These may be due to turnover. It's the concentration of the tiny particles that linger in the air for hours that causes most infections, not casual exposure. People didn't stay in one place long enough for the particles to build up.

Thus, large indoor family gatherings are a risk, because they tend to be fairly lengthy affairs, in closed in areas with little air circulation, and lots of socialization. But with all things, risk assessment is personal. Excluding grandma isn't good, because of social isolation and rejection. But having smaller events when you have a lot of elderly relatives might make sense.

But this is only a temporary solution. The virus is endemic. It's going to spread everywhere, regardless of what you do. But you can slow it down a bit, or spread out sharp peaks over longer periods of time, which might be useful to prevent hospitals from being overloaded. But there's been so much disinformation on that particular topic, it's reasonable to be skeptical.

Too much emphasis is being placed on "super spreader" stuff as a function of quantity of people rather than looking at the kinematics of viral particle motion.

SARS-COV-2 is just like every other airborne respiratory virus with an animal reservoir.  The only masks that will stop it are full-face positive pressure respirators.  Even N95s won't fully stop it.  Social distancing won't stop it.  All that masks and social distancing do is cut down the quantity of viral particles trapped in large droplets of vapor exhalate. Once those droplets (of both infected and uninfected) have saturated the mask material, the weave expands, making the openings in the weave even larger. That's assuming you've got it tightly-fitted, otherwise you leave a vapor wake around the sides of the mask that linger after your passage.  Those smaller water droplets float on that air wake and have a significant hang time, especially in still air.

Unless you've touched snot or phlegm and then touched a surface, the primary means of transmission is airborne.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Because on the sudden travel changes my father nearly didn't get into the states and had to call me up at 11 pm to have me make him a covid test that was 24 hours ago and not 35 hours ago. He was very thankful because he was surrounded by a large group of people stunned or weeping that they would not get to visit their families for the holidays because of a sudden change of testing conditions for a disease about as bad as sniffles.

[Reckall]

Because on the sudden travel changes my father nearly didn't get into the states and had to call me up at 11 pm to have me make him a covid test that was 24 hours ago and not 35 hours ago. He was very thankful because he was surrounded by a large group of people stunned or weeping that they would not get to visit their families for the holidays because of a sudden change of testing conditions for a disease about as bad as sniffles.

When are the US due to reach one million deaths BTW?

[Pat]

The vaccines don't prevent transmission, but that's a null argument. Nobody seems to disagree on that topic.

When it comes to sars2, very few interventions seem to work. Locking down borders, combined with quarantines for new arrivals, and aggressive contact tracing when cases do slip through, is one. But that only works for island nations that can completely control their borders. The contact tracing part also only works when there is no community transmission. If you contain any new outbreaks, and identify every single person who was infected, then you can stop the spread. But if you find a single case that you can't trace back to a new arrival, then you've lost control and the virus will spread in invisible chains of transmission until it becomes endemic, regardless of what you do. But even this solution isn't viable in the long term, because shutting your borders permanently will wreck your economy.

Shutting down large gatherings is another intervention that seems to work. This is because a very high proportion of covid-19 cases can be linked back to superspreader events, where numerous people are infected and then carry the disease back home. Because of the highly aerosolized nature of the disease, most superspreader events are indoors. In other words, in areas where the air is relatively still, allowing tiny droplets with viral loads to build up in high concentrations, over tens of minute or hours. In addition, most of the superspreader events involve some kind of talking or singing, because open mouths lead to more of these tiny droplets being emitted. It's very clear that infection, and the severity of the infection, is related to viral loads. High concentrations lead to increased numbers of infections, and worse outcomes.

Conversely, events held outdoors present very little risk, because the constant natural airflow prevents the particles from building up. Though this isn't really a practical solution in the northern hemisphere in winter. Also, there have been very few cases of transmission in airplanes, apparently because of the lack of talking and constant recirculation of the air. Another surprising example is the high speed trains in Japan, where people are packed together. It's speculation, but lack of transmission may be due to cultural mores against talking on mass transit.

Despite a lot of panicked public health messaging, bars didn't turn out to a major driver of transmission. Cases certainly happened, but not to degree many expected. Supermarkets were also very low risk. These may be due to turnover. It's the concentration of the tiny particles that linger in the air for hours that causes most infections, not casual exposure. People didn't stay in one place long enough for the particles to build up.

Thus, large indoor family gatherings are a risk, because they tend to be fairly lengthy affairs, in closed in areas with little air circulation, and lots of socialization. But with all things, risk assessment is personal. Excluding grandma isn't good, because of social isolation and rejection. But having smaller events when you have a lot of elderly relatives might make sense.

But this is only a temporary solution. The virus is endemic. It's going to spread everywhere, regardless of what you do. But you can slow it down a bit, or spread out sharp peaks over longer periods of time, which might be useful to prevent hospitals from being overloaded. But there's been so much disinformation on that particular topic, it's reasonable to be skeptical.

Too much emphasis is being placed on "super spreader" stuff as a function of quantity of people rather than looking at the kinematics of viral particle motion.

SARS-COV-2 is just like every other airborne respiratory virus with an animal reservoir.  The only masks that will stop it are full-face positive pressure respirators.  Even N95s won't fully stop it.  Social distancing won't stop it.  All that masks and social distancing do is cut down the quantity of viral particles trapped in large droplets of vapor exhalate. Once those droplets (of both infected and uninfected) have saturated the mask material, the weave expands, making the openings in the weave even larger. That's assuming you've got it tightly-fitted, otherwise you leave a vapor wake around the sides of the mask that linger after your passage.  Those smaller water droplets float on that air wake and have a significant hang time, especially in still air.

Unless you've touched snot or phlegm and then touched a surface, the primary means of transmission is airborne.

The mechanism of transmission does a good job of explaining why the superspreader events happen. In fact, it was the nature of the superspreader events (indoors not outdoors, none in airplanes) that was one of the early clues suggesting that covid-19 was highly aerosolized, and that the large droplet model was wrong.

Masks and social distancing are different topics. Masks have been shown to be largely ineffective, and this follows from what we know about the highly aerosolized nature of the disease. The droplets carrying the great majority of shed viruses are smaller than the particles even an N95 respirator can block. Positive pressure may help, but I haven't seen any studies, and it's not a feature of any face covering that's been seriously considered for public use. Social distancing is also of marginal benefit. It's remarkable how long public health took to recognize the highly aerosolized nature of the disease despite very strong evidence, and even more remarkable that the conclusion didn't change any of their policy recommendations. If they were true advocates for public health instead of political animals, they would have dropped the mask and constant sanitation recommendations, and strongly pushed ventilation.

[Spinachcat]

When are the US due to reach one million deaths BTW?

As the CDC admitted long ago that only 6% of the "death total" actually died FROM the China Virus and 94% died WITH the China Virus, the USA won't be hitting 1M deaths FROM the virus for at least two decades.

However, we'll be hitting 1M deaths FROM the lockdowns and FROM the experimental vax long before then.

[Shrieking Banshee]

When are the US due to reach one million deaths BTW?

As the CDC admitted long ago that only 6% of the "death total" actually died FROM the China Virus and 94% died WITH the China Virus, the USA won't be hitting 1M deaths FROM the virus for at least two decades.

Link for the data?

But even if the death toll is a true number, thats very much a 'PEOPLE WILL DIE' catchall that can be used to ban fast food, cars, and Kinder Suprises.

[rgalex]

Because on the sudden travel changes my father nearly didn't get into the states and had to call me up at 11 pm to have me make him a covid test that was 24 hours ago and not 35 hours ago. He was very thankful because he was surrounded by a large group of people stunned or weeping that they would not get to visit their families for the holidays because of a sudden change of testing conditions for a disease about as bad as sniffles.

When are the US due to reach one million deaths BTW?

If you are honest about it, never.  Like most other seasonal respiratory viruses the death count should reset every new season.  We don't keep a running total of flu deaths, why are we doing it for C-19?

[Daztur]

When are the US due to reach one million deaths BTW?

As the CDC admitted long ago that only 6% of the "death total" actually died FROM the China Virus and 94% died WITH the China Virus, the USA won't be hitting 1M deaths FROM the virus for at least two decades.

However, we'll be hitting 1M deaths FROM the lockdowns and FROM the experimental vax long before then.

The 94% included a massive basket of other health problems including "being fat."

So ALL fat people who got corona and died were counted as part of that 94%.

[Mistwell]

Nobody asked you if you found my question interesting. I am asking why you are using THAT SITE for information? How is THAT SITE "proof" of anything, and why did you find yourself on that particular crazy website?

Careful with those pearls!

You think it's inappropriate in some way to ask why a person would be going to and re-posting from a blatantly antisemitic site?