rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
yes, to some degree, like when I can stay 6' from someone outside
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
thank you, yes, when
I was thinking of those US states that just ripped the band aid off & said "it's up to you to make the right decision" & so many ppl just stopped using them altogether. that's not what I call "guidance"
rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
yes, & re: those stats about those other states, that's of little consolation to those people, there, that die every day from covid. just think how good their numbers would be if they were smarter
just read this to that point
“I think those mass mandates in outdoor spaces should probably be the first to go,” she said. “We really need to focus on places we know are at high risk for a transmission like large gatherings and closed spaces with poor ventilation.”
Homing in on the importance of indoor masking and helping people understand when it's safe to take off the mask may actually increase compliance
Last edited:
rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
looks like the US state of Rhode Island is doing a phased relaxation of masks but it's complicated. wish us all luck when we get further down the road
Masks will be recommended, not mandatory, in Rhode Island starting May 7, part of a slate of coronavirus pandemic-related restrictions being eased next month.
Gov. Dan McKee announced the changes at a news conference Thursday. They include bringing indoor dining, houses of worship, retail stores, gyms and more to full capacity by May 28. An intermediate step will kick in for many restrictions on May 7, when many locations can move to 80% capacity.
See a full list of the changes here:
Currently, the state requires people to wear masks when near other people outdoors and indoors. But Rhode Island is dropping that requirement for people outside, a step some, though not all, experts are advocating for as vaccination rates go up.
Masks will be recommended, not mandatory, in Rhode Island starting May 7, part of a slate of coronavirus pandemic-related restrictions being eased next month.
Gov. Dan McKee announced the changes at a news conference Thursday. They include bringing indoor dining, houses of worship, retail stores, gyms and more to full capacity by May 28. An intermediate step will kick in for many restrictions on May 7, when many locations can move to 80% capacity.
See a full list of the changes here:
Currently, the state requires people to wear masks when near other people outdoors and indoors. But Rhode Island is dropping that requirement for people outside, a step some, though not all, experts are advocating for as vaccination rates go up.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
I agree with your concerns expressed in other comments, to an extent, but wearing a mouth and nose covering outdoors except in facing close proximity is a disproportionate measure (imo) and lacks any benefit for others (and I think this is widely recognised) except as a symbolic gesture. It may even be to the population's detriment as it brings restrictions into disrepute.
rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
just opening my eyes & maybe I need coffee. I don't think I understand this. did you forget to begin with the word "not"?
matticus
Guru
I SUSPECT Ajax is furiously agreeing with what you wrote!
rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
oh OK thanks, yeah I got the feeling we didn't disagree. too many polite double negatives can confuse me ... ;-)
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Can't see any negatives in "wearing a mouth and nose covering outdoors except in facing close proximity is a disproportionate measure (imo) and lacks any benefit for others."
But given the daily case rate in your state, imo wearing 'masks' indoors in public places, is of course, entirely sensible and responsible.
But given the daily case rate in your state, imo wearing 'masks' indoors in public places, is of course, entirely sensible and responsible.
rockyroller
Guru
- Location
- 20 miles northwest of Boston, MA
ok whatever, I didn't write that anyway, it was someone else. I sometimes dislike how scientist write, just say it's OK not to wear a mask outside unless you get close to somebody. how hard is that? I think if the "common man & child" can understand a scientist, they might listen to them instead of tune them out. it's like Bernie Sanders promoting a single payer healthcare system. OK great, but nobody know what he means. you want votes? explain it to me like I'm 6
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Impact of vaccination on household transmission of SARS-COV-2 in England
Conclusions " In addition to the direct effects of preventing cases and reducing severity, we have shown that both the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines are associated with reduced likelihood of household transmission by 40-50% from individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 after vaccination, highlighting important wider benefits to close contacts. . . . these results could also have implications for transmissibility in other settings with similar transmission risks."
Comment: Can't get much closer than (and so risk of catching from) another asymptomatic household member.
Dr Peter English (Retired Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Former Editor of Vaccines in Practice Magazine, Immediate past Chair of the BMA Public Health Medicine Committee) assessment:
". . . substantial numbers, so the paper's conclusions are robust.
“We have mounting evidence of the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines. Vaccines are more . . . effective against death and critical care admission, and against hospital admission, than [less serious disease] and still less effective against asymptomatic disease [infected]. . . . their efficacy in terms of preventing people from being infectious is harder to evaluate – that is where this study comes in.
“The [paper] may, . . . have underestimated the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing transmission, as their definition of secondary cases is likely to have included some co-cases (people who acquired their infection from the same source as the “index case”, rather than from the index case).
“These findings are really important [and] extremely encouraging. They add to our reasons to hope that the vaccines will truly add to herd immunity. . . . This study shows that even if people who are vaccinated do become infected, they are considerably less likely to be infectious, and to pass the infection on to others."
Comment: The more effective the vaccination regime is at preventing transmission the quicker herd immunity will be reached (though it may still never be reached if the required percentage of the population cannot be vaccinated (low take up and 13M under 16s).
Conclusions " In addition to the direct effects of preventing cases and reducing severity, we have shown that both the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines are associated with reduced likelihood of household transmission by 40-50% from individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 after vaccination, highlighting important wider benefits to close contacts. . . . these results could also have implications for transmissibility in other settings with similar transmission risks."
Comment: Can't get much closer than (and so risk of catching from) another asymptomatic household member.
Dr Peter English (Retired Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Former Editor of Vaccines in Practice Magazine, Immediate past Chair of the BMA Public Health Medicine Committee) assessment:
". . . substantial numbers, so the paper's conclusions are robust.
“We have mounting evidence of the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines. Vaccines are more . . . effective against death and critical care admission, and against hospital admission, than [less serious disease] and still less effective against asymptomatic disease [infected]. . . . their efficacy in terms of preventing people from being infectious is harder to evaluate – that is where this study comes in.
“The [paper] may, . . . have underestimated the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing transmission, as their definition of secondary cases is likely to have included some co-cases (people who acquired their infection from the same source as the “index case”, rather than from the index case).
“These findings are really important [and] extremely encouraging. They add to our reasons to hope that the vaccines will truly add to herd immunity. . . . This study shows that even if people who are vaccinated do become infected, they are considerably less likely to be infectious, and to pass the infection on to others."
Comment: The more effective the vaccination regime is at preventing transmission the quicker herd immunity will be reached (though it may still never be reached if the required percentage of the population cannot be vaccinated (low take up and 13M under 16s).
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Anti-lockdown (refused to close bars and restaurants) Popular Party reelected in Madrid regional elections with increased vote share but still not quite a majority of seats. https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/04...sition-to-increase-seats-in-regional-assembly
This is despite PP-ruled Madrid region being the hardest-hit in Spain and facing rising infection numbers again now. Will this have an effect on Madrid's recovery?
This is despite PP-ruled Madrid region being the hardest-hit in Spain and facing rising infection numbers again now. Will this have an effect on Madrid's recovery?
matticus
Guru
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
USA experts now seeming to say eradication through herd immunity unlikely, so plan for local eliminations. For the UK, it again means we need working test and trace: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html
