Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

CDC says that a face mask is more effective than a Vaccine ( I guess Vaccine's aren't what they're cracked up to be!)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kestrel

It still baffles me as to the "why" We listen to these people at all?...on the CDC Website it details the size of virus particles and says even N95 face masks fail to filter out a significant portion of the virus particles. This stuff is comparable to the old Cigarette Commercials and the "Doctor" is telling you that 67% of all Doctors Smoke Pall Mall Cig's (just an aside but I wonder if we should be alarmed at the rate of Patients that are killed each year due to Dr assisted accidental deaths..Hint:  Its more than what the Wuhan Cooties killed even if we accept all the self inflicted head wounds/car crashes/parachute failures and other assorted frauds labeled Covid for monetary considerations)

a206e38cef48a11dbed5e36ee2fa952dc4254418

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satellite66

Deep state has infected the CDC  

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Yeah that 'facemask" saves lives. Morons. it just reminds you to fear your fellow man.

  • Best Post (+1) 3
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Well, yes, a mask that DOES exist - right here, right now, today - Is certainly more effective (~50%, if properly worn) than  a vaccine that DOESN'T yet exist.

How effective WILL any of the upcoming vaccines be? Nobody knows yet. But a close comparison would be flu Vaccines. On a good closely matched year with mostly the H1N1 strain, flu shots are at most about 60% effective... but the last time we hit that high was the 2010-11 season. On a bad year with mostly H3N2, such as the 2014-15 season, as low as 19%.

Effectiveness in the past several flu seasons:

2018-2019  -  29%

2017-2018  -  38%

2016-2017  -  40%

2015-2016  -  48%

2014-2015  -  19%

2013-2014  -  52%

2012-2013  -  49%

2011-2012  -  47%

2010-2011 -  60%

2009-2010 - 56%

2008-2009 - 41%

That is to say, even with 60+ years experience with flu vaccines (the flu vaccine was invented in WWII most for the US Military, but didn't become widespread in the general public until well after), the BEST they can do is 60%, and only in 3 times of the past 10 have they even beaten the effectiveness of a mask.

Does anybody really think that v1.0 of a COVID-19 vaccine will be EVEN this effective?

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee
  • Disagree (-1) 3
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zipndun

If this crap is so contagious and masks are so good, why aren't the medical waste disposal bins set up every where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
4 minutes ago, zipndun said:

If this crap is so contagious and masks are so good, why aren't the medical waste disposal bins set up every where?

It's all a matter of "common sense". I would expect that the average citizen has enough common sense to dispose of a mask in the same way as, say, a kleenex you've blown your nose into whilst having the flu.

But apparently I expect too much of the average citizen. WSB-TV (GA) Chattahoochee River officials concerned about rising amount of PPE pollution in water

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oathtaker

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/smoke-faq.html
 

The above link takes you to the CDC site that deals with Forest Fire Smoke. If you scroll down you’ll see that the CDC doesn’t recommend cloth face covering to protect against smoke. Smoke particulate is on the big end of virus size. 

Tell me this crap isn’t political....
 

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

The CDC can go pound sand. I stopped taking their film flam organization seriously after the 2000th time they flip flopped on this scam-demic. 

 

But of course the rioting and looting  BLM/Antifa punks will get a exemption from the CDC, as usual?

Edited by RedSoloCup
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
3 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Yeah that 'facemask" saves lives. Morons. it just reminds you to fear your fellow man.

 

FB_IMG_1595689395385.jpg

  • Best Post (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ma Deuce

I became cynical of the CDC when I was in the military. Returning from Desert Storm, my shot record was full from all the annotations of the various vaccinations I'd received over the years. So they made up a new one, leaving out the older vaccinations and putting in the most recent. That was when I noticed they left out the two anthrax injections I received while in the Gulf.

When I asked about this omission, the medtech gave me this censored and bull reply that it wasn't really necessary to include it in my shot record. When I asked him why, he danced around the answer. Then he looked slightly ticked off when I pulled out a pen and wrote the omitted information into my shot record.

After that, I became very distrustful of the CDC and the WHO. Yeah, I know, not all health officials are here to screw you over. But for the few that do, in general, it makes you naturally suspicious of them all.

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
5 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Well, yes, a mask that DOES exist - right here, right now, today - Is certainly more effective (~50%, if properly worn) than  a vaccine that DOESN'T yet exist.

How effective WILL any of the upcoming vaccines be? Nobody knows yet. But a close comparison would be flu Vaccines. On a good closely matched year with mostly the H1N1 strain, flu shots are at most about 60% effective... but the last time we hit that high was the 2010-11 season. On a bad year with mostly H3N2, such as the 2014-15 season, as low as 19%.

Effectiveness in the past several flu seasons:

2018-2019  -  29%

2017-2018  -  38%

2016-2017  -  40%

2015-2016  -  48%

2014-2015  -  19%

2013-2014  -  52%

2012-2013  -  49%

2011-2012  -  47%

2010-2011 -  60%

2009-2010 - 56%

2008-2009 - 41%

That is to say, even with 60+ years experience with flu vaccines (the flu vaccine was invented in WWII most for the US Military, but didn't become widespread in the general public until well after), the BEST they can do is 60%, and only in 3 times of the past 10 have they even beaten the effectiveness of a mask.

Does anybody really think that v1.0 of a COVID-19 vaccine will be EVEN this effective?

And what's the downside of the Vaccines? ( I mean other than the fact that they don't work in significant number of people not too mention what we know now a days about the CDC numbers game and reliability)..Well they don't seem to give them away..So there's that!..But I get it DAS...and if you feel better and safer (and compliant) I'm sure the CDC will extend a blessing.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, Ma Deuce said:

I became cynical of the CDC when I was in the military. Returning from Desert Storm, my shot record was full from all the annotations of the various vaccinations I'd received over the years. So they made up a new one, leaving out the older vaccinations and putting in the most recent. That was when I noticed they left out the two anthrax injections I received while in the Gulf.

When I asked about this omission, the medtech gave me this censored and bull reply that it wasn't really necessary to include it in my shot record. When I asked him why, he danced around the answer. Then he looked slightly ticked off when I pulled out a pen and wrote the omitted information into my shot record.

After that, I became very distrustful of the CDC and the WHO. Yeah, I know, not all health officials are here to screw you over. But for the few that do, in general, it makes you naturally suspicious of them all.

 

But the one's that do seem to rise to the top..just like the big chunks in a septic tank!

Kestrel...

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fed_up
15 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Well, yes, a mask that DOES exist - right here, right now, today - Is certainly more effective (~50%, if properly worn) than  a vaccine that DOESN'T yet exist.

How effective WILL any of the upcoming vaccines be? Nobody knows yet. But a close comparison would be flu Vaccines. On a good closely matched year with mostly the H1N1 strain, flu shots are at most about 60% effective... but the last time we hit that high was the 2010-11 season. On a bad year with mostly H3N2, such as the 2014-15 season, as low as 19%.

Effectiveness in the past several flu seasons:

2018-2019  -  29%

2017-2018  -  38%

2016-2017  -  40%

2015-2016  -  48%

2014-2015  -  19%

2013-2014  -  52%

2012-2013  -  49%

2011-2012  -  47%

2010-2011 -  60%

2009-2010 - 56%

2008-2009 - 41%

That is to say, even with 60+ years experience with flu vaccines (the flu vaccine was invented in WWII most for the US Military, but didn't become widespread in the general public until well after), the BEST they can do is 60%, and only in 3 times of the past 10 have they even beaten the effectiveness of a mask.

Does anybody really think that v1.0 of a COVID-19 vaccine will be EVEN this effective?

Your numbers are very accurate (and surprising to many people surely), but only tell half the story....and the other half is the important one.

 

A mask simply protects you while you wear the mask. You never gain immunity from anything. You simply delay the chances of catching the virus while you wear it.

 

A vaccine gives you immunity from that virus. Forever.

 

So even a vaccine with a relatively low effectiveness rate is much better than a mask that provides no long term protection....and that assumes people are wearing the masks correctly and that the masks are proper type.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
4 hours ago, Fed_up said:

Your numbers are very accurate (and surprising to many people surely), but only tell half the story....and the other half is the important one.

 

A mask simply protects you while you wear the mask. You never gain immunity from anything. You simply delay the chances of catching the virus while you wear it.

 

A vaccine gives you immunity from that virus. Forever.

 

So even a vaccine with a relatively low effectiveness rate is much better than a mask that provides no long term protection....and that assumes people are wearing the masks correctly and that the masks are proper type.

Not so fast. . .

This data suggests that the durability of the vaccine for the H3N2 flu strain is approximately 150 days

Link

I have to believe this is typical of flu vaccines --otherwise why would one need to get vaccinated against a strain for which they had already been vaccinated? Flu vaccines do not work the same as measles . polio or chicken pox.

Edited by mjperry51
Correct Link
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fed_up
2 hours ago, mjperry51 said:

Not so fast. . .

This data suggests that the durability of the vaccine for the H3N2 flu strain is approximately 150 days

Link

I have to believe this is typical of flu vaccines --otherwise why would one need to get vaccinated against a strain for which they had already been vaccinated? Flu vaccines do not work the same as measles . polio or chicken pox.

Not sure about your link......entertaining, but not helpful for this topic.

 

But even so, if a decent percentage of the population gets the vaccine then transmission effectively stops (herd immunity).The exact percentage of vaccinated and recovered COVID folks is unknown, but herd immunity is real. That would be true even if the durability was a couple weeks or a half year.

 

The flu vaccine we get yearly is due to mutated versions popping up yearly. The flu vaccine is different every year and contains multiple strains included based on scientists best guesses on which will be the dominant strains that year.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
19 minutes ago, Fed_up said:

Not sure about your link......entertaining, but not helpful for this topic.

 

But even so, if a decent percentage of the population gets the vaccine then transmission effectively stops (herd immunity).The exact percentage of vaccinated and recovered COVID folks is unknown, but herd immunity is real. That would be true even if the durability was a couple weeks or a half year.

 

The flu vaccine we get yearly is due to mutated versions popping up yearly. The flu vaccine is different every year and contains multiple strains included based on scientists best guesses on which will be the dominant strains that year.

So how many times has the Wuhan Cooties Mutated so far?..anyone know?

Kestrel...

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
44 minutes ago, Fed_up said:

Not sure about your link......entertaining, but not helpful for this topic.

 

But even so, if a decent percentage of the population gets the vaccine then transmission effectively stops (herd immunity).The exact percentage of vaccinated and recovered COVID folks is unknown, but herd immunity is real. That would be true even if the durability was a couple weeks or a half year.

 

The flu vaccine we get yearly is due to mutated versions popping up yearly. The flu vaccine is different every year and contains multiple strains included based on scientists best guesses on which will be the dominant strains that year.

I'm glad you find my source "entertaining". Absent any verifiable supporting documentation for your assertions I am motivated to ask what are your qualifications to make the claim of eternal immunity as a result of flu vaccines?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fed_up
2 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

I'm glad you find my source "entertaining". Absent any verifiable supporting documentation for your assertions I am motivated to ask what are your qualifications to make the claim of eternal immunity as a result of flu vaccines?

You link takes me to a picture of a crazy antifa member in portland......no article or documentation.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
17 minutes ago, Fed_up said:

You link takes me to a picture of a crazy antifa member in portland......no article or documentation.

Sorry -- clip board malfunction.

That was entertaining. . .

Try this

Link

Do you have an answer to my question as to your qualifications?

Edited by mjperry51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fed_up
3 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

Sorry -- clip board malfunction.

That was entertaining. . .

Try this

Link

Do you have an answer to my question as to your qualifications?

A Pre-med degree with a couple courses in disease transmission help inform my opinion. I don't claim to be an expert, but in this case my only qualification has to be from reading the link you provide:

 

"Vaccines have been a crucial public health tool for decades, so it may seem strange that their durability isn't well understood. But vaccines are approved and come to market years before it's clear how long protection lasts. Later, fading protection can go unnoticed because a vaccine in wide use has largely eliminated transmission of the microbes it protects against, making "breakthrough" infections rare. Even if viruses or bacteria are still in circulation, people vaccinated against them will sometimes receive natural boosting of their immunity. And declining vaccine immunity is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon: A breakthrough infection often leads to much less severe symptoms of the disease."

 

That is a lot of words to describe basic herd immunity.

 

While the immunization protection wanes, it won't matter because the microbe has effectively died off due to no one to transmit to......assuming a certain percentage of people have either been immunized or have already had the disease naturally. That percentage is unknown. It was originally thought to be be in the 60% range, but info from Sweden and some other places seem to show the rate is much lower for this virus for some reason. 

 

But even if the protection wears of after a bit it is still better than a mask long term. Unless you plan to wear the mask for ever.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
44 minutes ago, Fed_up said:

A Pre-med degree with a couple courses in disease transmission help inform my opinion. I don't claim to be an expert, but in this case my only qualification has to be from reading the link you provide:

 

"Vaccines have been a crucial public health tool for decades, so it may seem strange that their durability isn't well understood. But vaccines are approved and come to market years before it's clear how long protection lasts. Later, fading protection can go unnoticed because a vaccine in wide use has largely eliminated transmission of the microbes it protects against, making "breakthrough" infections rare. Even if viruses or bacteria are still in circulation, people vaccinated against them will sometimes receive natural boosting of their immunity. And declining vaccine immunity is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon: A breakthrough infection often leads to much less severe symptoms of the disease."

 

That is a lot of words to describe basic herd immunity.

 

While the immunization protection wanes, it won't matter because the microbe has effectively died off due to no one to transmit to......assuming a certain percentage of people have either been immunized or have already had the disease naturally. That percentage is unknown. It was originally thought to be be in the 60% range, but info from Sweden and some other places seem to show the rate is much lower for this virus for some reason. 

 

But even if the protection wears of after a bit it is still better than a mask long term. Unless you plan to wear the mask for ever.

I'll partially defer to your education. The key data point for me in the linked article was the graph that showed vaccine durability going to basically zero after 150 days.

I understand the concept of herd immunity, and that viruses mutate and weaken as they spread. My daughter is moving on campus for her freshman year tomorrow, so I've been closely following infection rates and other statistics from the university. Reported new case rates have been dropping significantly over the past few weeks, with no reported hospitalizations or deaths in the area.

I've been disappointed by the selection of data to which we are consistently subjected. Total cases (infections) over a  6 month period is useless. A moving average over a reasonable time period (3-6 weeks makes sense to me) for specific data points (cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and and recoveries) seems more relevant with respect to where things are, which is far more important that the "ancient" history of the pandemic's origin and "total numbers". Total numbers are great for creating a baseline level of fear and apprehension, and cloud the statistics that demonstrate progress.

Masks? I"m ambivalent. I'm a common sense person. Common sense tell me while the masks the public uses are useless against the virus itself it will mitigate the spread of droplets that contain a virus. Masks also bring their own issues like respiratory infections, reduced oxygen intake during exercise, and so on.  So I wear a mask at the grocery, if I go to the mall, anyplace I cannot insure appropriate physical distancing. I stopped going to the gym long before the mandates began, because I didn't trust people to use common sense.

All these thoughts are focused on the medical aspects -- I'm not going to go into the Constitutional/ethical aspects of all the government actions taken. I'll just say Congress fiddled while Rome was burning.

Edited by mjperry51
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
8 hours ago, Fed_up said:

Your numbers are very accurate (and surprising to many people surely), but only tell half the story....and the other half is the important one.

 

A mask simply protects you while you wear the mask. You never gain immunity from anything. You simply delay the chances of catching the virus while you wear it.

 

A vaccine gives you immunity from that virus. Forever.

 

So even a vaccine with a relatively low effectiveness rate is much better than a mask that provides no long term protection....and that assumes people are wearing the masks correctly and that the masks are proper type.

It's all about "viral load" and "infectious threshold".

The ideal situation for Herd Immunity would be for people to exposed to just enough of the virus that their body can detect it and build up antibodies... but NOT so much that it overwhelms their immune system.

Masks can HELP with that... precisely because they DON'T "Prevent" the spread but merely minimize it. Yes, an astronaut suit like in Kestrel's original post would "prevent", but you really don't want that as an average non-high-risk person. (Besides, those full-body suits are uncomfortable as hell, I've had to wear them several times in industrial Hazmat situations (Silane gas as used in semiconductor production (HCL3Si? If inhaled, lethal in the parts per billion.)  Likewise Hydroflouric Acid (HF) is another nasty in the semiconductor industry)

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
23 hours ago, Oathtaker said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/smoke-faq.html
 

The above link takes you to the CDC site that deals with Forest Fire Smoke. If you scroll down you’ll see that the CDC doesn’t recommend cloth face covering to protect against smoke. Smoke particulate is on the big end of virus size. 

Tell me this crap isn’t political....
 

 

As part-time EMS, I can address that. The problem with smoke inhalation is not the smoke per se; it's the lack of oxygen that accompanies it in a fire. Most people that die from "smoke inhalation" actually die from asphyxiation, it's just that the soot on their lungs is the telltale.  

Heck, if smoke itself were the problem, I'd have been dead YEARS ago from the smoke of this no-name barbecue joint near the "20-mile bend" on US 41 west of Miami.

Rule of thumb for BBQ: The worse the place looks, the better the food. This place wasn't EVEN to the level of a "Tar-Paper Shack".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...