outbreak! (ebola, sars, coronavirus, etc)

Maybe, and I know it's always been there in some respect, but it seems even more omnipresent all of the sudden.

More reasons to go outside:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263069

Patients with vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/mL) were 14 times more likely to have severe or critical disease than patients with 25(OH)D ≥40 ng/mL

During the heights of Omicron a month ago, I ate vitamin D gummies like they were Dots.

Without trying to open up any can of worms here, is there a reason for the absolute explosion of "CDC admitted masks don't work at all" posts and tweets I'm seeing all over the place within the last week or two? I'm assuming this is tied to the CDC thing about cloth masks, but that talking point is seemingly everywhere recently.

― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, February 7, 2022 1:23 PM bookmarkflaglink

an article just came out where the CDC publicly said wearing N95s/KN95s made you 83% less likely to catch COVID, which I'm guessing is it. people can't stand the idea that a bunch of plandemic sheep are healthier than they are because they listened to the government.

one thing about people who say "masks don't work" is:

1) they will say "studies prove masks don't work"
2) they won't be able to point you to any
3) if you get beyond two responses, the remaining responses will all be meme responses, at least one will be an alt-right meme, and the person's username will be their first name followed by a series of numbers

people who say "masks don't work" are wrong.

but i don't think i linked the study i've mentioned a few times, so here goes: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-summary-covid-19-children-young-people-and-education-settings

this is the closest (and only!) thing i've seen to a controlled apples and apples study of reasonable size, where schools in similar communities at similar stages of the pandemic were selected to randomly mask/not mask. it found masks have an effect on school transmission that is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

since masks do work (we know this) the implied conclusion to me is "kids don't wear masks properly for 8 hours (no kidding!), and the main thing that determines whether schools are safe is the community in which they are embedded".

p.s.

daycare/school mask mandate ends in e.g. NJ next month, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-governor-end-school-mask-mandate-rcna15168.

likely just in time for under fives to get their first shot

FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet on February 15 to review data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for children 6 months through 4 years of age. https://t.co/8G2dxKU8aQ

— James E.K. Hildreth (@JamesEKHildreth) February 7, 2022

since masks do work (we know this) the implied conclusion to me is "kids don't wear masks properly for 8 hours (no kidding!), and the main thing that determines whether schools are safe is the community in which they are embedded".

That's a much better conclusion than the one I see all the time: "schools should have never closed."

Caek, I clicked on the most recent of the links you posted, and it says that schools that masked had a 43% decrease in Covid absences over a 2-3 week period, as opposed to a 32% decrease for schools that did not mask. If that difference is statistically insignificant, the authors of the study do not say so.

This is how it summarizes previous studies: "The results were mixed but taken together support the conclusion that the use of face coverings in schools can contribute to reducing COVID-19 transmission."

I realize this isn't a clear-cut "masks are a magic bullet," but it also doesn't seem like it's saying "masks don't make a difference in schools." Is there something I missed?

granted it's an extremely weirdly written document because it's written for a non-technical audience, but this paragraph is saying that the difference between the two samples is below the 95% CI conventionally required in the medical (and other scientific) literature to reject the null hypothesis that an intervention has no effect. this is what i mean by "statistically indistinguishable from zero".

At surface level, this suggests that COVID-19 absence fell by 0.6 percentage points more
(an 11% relative difference) in secondary schools that used face masks compared to
similar schools that did not over a 2–3-week period.

There is a level of statistical uncertainty around the result. The analysis is non-peer
reviewed and with the current sample size, shows a non-statistical and unknown clinical
significant reduction in infection in a short follow up period, including that a ‘false positive’
(i.e. finding that face coverings saw reduced absence when the finding is actually by
chance) would emerge around 15% of the time; a 5% threshold is widely used to declare
statistical significance in academic literature.

fwiw iiuc this review was used to justify the temporary reinstatement of school masking in the UK in january but also used to justify that reinstatement being only temporary for the month of january (i think masks are off again?)

drawing the line at 95% CI (i.e. "two standard deviations") is a convention that has been in place for like 200 years. i can see the case for being looser with "proof" in a pandemic. but i can also see the case for being stricter when kids are involved.

i'll also grant that the vaccination rate among kids is lower in the US, which makes the argument for masking stronger (it's the best we've got, given people are unwilling to give there kids an incredibly effective zero risk injection).

people who say "masks don't work" are wrong.

but i don't think i linked the study i've mentioned a few times, so here goes: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-summary-covid-19-children-young-people-and-education-settings

this is the closest (and only!) thing i've seen to a controlled apples and apples study of reasonable size, where schools in similar communities at similar stages of the pandemic were selected to randomly mask/not mask. it found masks have an effect on school transmission that is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

since masks do work (we know this) the implied conclusion to me is "kids don't wear masks properly for 8 hours (no kidding!), and the main thing that determines whether schools are safe is the community in which they are embedded".

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 7 February 2022 22:41 (yesterday) link

FTR, this is all I ever suggested. I never said "masks don't work," I said that when you consider the fact that kids (1) can't be expected to wear actual N95s, let alone properly fitting ones, (2) many don't even wear KF94 or equivalent (in some cases even surgical masks), and (3) even if they do, there's no way they're going to be properly fitted for 6-8 hours, it's unilkely that they're going to make much difference in school transmission. Add in the fact that there are drawbacks to them (harder to hear, harder to see facial expressions, impediment to socializing, etc.), I thought they should stop requiring masks in school, even moreso once vaccination was widespread among kids, and I still do.

And whatever, we didn't have the data to back that up before and "erred on the side of caution," ok, but what is the argument for continuing masking in schools now?

Assholes not vaccinating their kids.

If you have a bunch of kids who aren't vaxxed in a community of people with low vaccination rates, then asking teachers to risk their lives every day so little Bronx or Ava can chit chat with their friends is idiotic.

Tbh, man alive, if you don't like it, send your kids to a private school where they don't require masks, or gtfoh.

FTR, this is all I ever suggested.

to be fair it's not _all_ you've ever suggested ITT.

table, if the argument is people not vaccinating their kids: vaccination is required in LAUSD schools. the compliance rate for this among kids 12+ is 90% and rising (and will be 100% modulo medical exemptions by the summer). among staff the vaccination rate it is literally 100.0%. do you think masks should be required here?

lol caek

Perhaps you didn't read the first sentence of my post, caek.

And part of the problem is that in places with high vax rates of students and teachers, getting rid of mask requirements makes people in places with low vax rates of students and teachers think that they can get rid of mask requirements, too.

Perhaps you didn't read the first sentence of my post, caek.

― we need outrage! we need dicks!! (the table is the table), Tuesday, February 8, 2022 12:15 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i read your post. i'm genuinely asking if the only reason you're in favor of masking in schools is low vaccination rates. man alive will likely post soon if you want someone to fight with.

Very cool to see ILX follow every other board down the path of people shouting past each other about kids and masks.

caek, as far as I'm concerned, yes—

As in, if certain percentage thresholds are reached for both teachers, school workers, and students, then I don't see why masks are necessary.

But because of people not vaccinating themselves or their kids, the situation becomes tricky very quickly— people who are doing the right thing in low-vax areas want what those high-vax areas have, and are becoming frustrated. I get that.

But that doesn't mean that masks should be abandoned—

then asking teachers to risk their lives every day

No one is asking the teachers to risk their lives. They have access to the vaccine and the booster. A boosted person who is not SEVERELY immunocompromised has basically zero risk of death.

And part of the problem is that in places with high vax rates of students and teachers, getting rid of mask requirements makes people in places with low vax rates of students and teachers think that they can get rid of mask requirements, too.

― we need outrage! we need dicks!! (the table is the table), Tuesday, February 8, 2022 12:17 PM (thirty-six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Also, I'm not going to accept "we need to set a good example for the anti-maskers in other districts" as a basis for public policy affecting children, and I really doubt it makes a difference in that regard.

I truly don't give a shit about your kids, man alive.

Like literally for the past year, all you've been doing is whining about how your kids have to wear masks, fuck the teachers and the wider community.

It's clear that you don't give a shit about who teaches your kids, or your wider community, so I just don't give a shit what you say about anything anymore.

It's pretty clear to me you don't give a shit about kids at all

lol what

man alive, you return to this thread as if you think the answers will change. Find another message board where this topic trends and get your jollies there.

As in, if certain percentage thresholds are reached for both teachers, school workers, and students, then I don't see why masks are necessary.

― we need outrage! we need dicks!! (the table is the table), Tuesday, February 8, 2022 12:32 PM (forty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

👍🏻

fwiw LAUSD is dropping the masking requirement *outdoors* if a school has a vaccination rate over 80%, as a treat.

drawing the line at 95% CI (i.e. "two standard deviations") is a convention that has been in place for like 200 years.

least important issue in the thread, but what the hell, it's ILX, this convention is due to Fisher and is not quite 100 years old

http://www.jerrydallal.com/lhsp/p05.htm

here's some wholesome content

FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet on February 15 to review data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for children 6 months through 4 years of age. https://t.co/8G2dxKU8aQ

— James E.K. Hildreth (@JamesEKHildreth) February 7, 2022

assuming this happens, my kids are getting dose #1 this month, dose #2 next month and dose ~3 around may/june. the the oldest one has the following todo list: candy factory store (we bike past a candy factory every day, it's torture for him), ride metro to dino museum, go up a skyscraper. the youngest one is 2 and has never been in a store or met 1/2 his grandparents.

haha fair xp

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/researchers-confirm-newly-developed-inhaled-vaccine-delivers-broad-protection-against-sars-cov-2-variants-of-concern/

Because inhaled vaccines target the lungs and upper airways where respiratory viruses first enter the body, they are far more effective at inducing a protective immune response, the researchers report.

dope. can't wait for those to be available, that would be a gamechanger.

No one is asking the teachers to risk their lives. They have access to the vaccine and the booster. A boosted person who is not SEVERELY immunocompromised has basically zero risk of death.

This is too binary. You are missing the real difference between risking your life and risking your death. Substantial changes to your state of health can change the entire course of your life for the worse.

While half a million people around the world have died of covid-19 since the omicron variant of the coronavirus was first detected in November, President Biden’s top medical adviser says the United States is exiting “the full-blown pandemic phase” of the coronavirus crisis.

It’s a sobering statistic — and a reminder of the pandemic’s ongoing toll even as cases start to decline in nearly every U.S. state.

About 100,000 of the deaths since omicron was declared a “variant of concern” occurred in the United States, the World Health Organization said Tuesday. WHO incident manager Abdi Mahamud said in an online Q&A session said the death toll is “tragic” given the availability of “effective vaccines.” He said there have been 130 million reported cases of the coronavirus globally since omicron.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/09/omicron-covid-deaths-fauci-pandemic/

500,000 omicron deaths worldwide, with 100,000 in the USA. 20% of the deaths, 4% of the deaths, greatest country in the world

sorry, 20% of the deaths, 4% of the population, i meant.

typos are amazing when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths

never wanna hear about American exceptionalism ever again, although I guess we were exceptional at dying

This is too binary. You are missing the real difference between risking your life and risking your death. Substantial changes to your state of health can change the entire course of your life for the worse.

^This is hilarious. "Risking your life" literally means to risk death.

Regardless of what the phrase "literally means," it's true that teaching is a profession that comes with some serious health risks, and Covid, even with vaccines, adds to them.

Glad to bring a bit of hilarity into your life. Now go out and do something that simply puts you at high risk of going blind, because hey, it's not like I'm asking you to risk your life, eh?

Is there any data on the risk of severe long term symptoms for a vaxed person (not to speak of boosted, which I assume is too recent a phenomenon to have good data)?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00177-5

Researchers in Israel report that people who have had both SARS-CoV-2 infection and doses of Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine were much less likely to report any of a range of common long-COVID symptoms than were people who were unvaccinated when infected. In fact, vaccinated people were no more likely to report symptoms than people who’d never caught SARS-CoV-2.

Admittedly not peer-reviewed yet. But Nature is a reputable journal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2021/02/08/did-covid-19-cure-this-persons-cancer/?sh=82340264217f

It's a rule (which probably has a name) that when any headline is in the form of a question, the correct answer is 'no'.

Beveridge's Law

The answer (no) will shock you

It's a rule (which probably has a name) that when any headline is in the form of a question, the correct answer is 'no'.