[walterbell]

From Bloomberg today, https://archive.is/fy4Wf

> In lieu of answers, what has emerged is a host of case studies providing somewhat different pictures of breakthrough infections. Variables including when the surveys were conducted, whether the delta variant was present, how much of the population was vaccinated and even what the weather was like at the time make it hard to compare results and suss out patterns. It’s difficult to know which data might ultimately carry more heft.

> For the time being, there are simply more questions than answers. Are breakthrough infections ticking up because of the delta variant, waning immunity or a return to normal life? Are vaccinated people more vulnerable to severe illness than previously thought? Just how common are breakthrough infections? It’s anyone’s guess. “It is generally the case that we have to make public health decisions based on imperfect data,” Frieden said. “But there is just a lot we don’t know.”

[gunapologist99]

> “It is generally the case that we have to make public health decisions based on imperfect data,”

Why can't the public draw their own conclusions and make their own health decisions, based on (imperfect) public data? Why does the data have to be kept secret? (Perhaps the data doesn't support the "public health decisions" and dictates of the state?)

If there's a concern that we can't effectively interpret the data, why can't we listen to whatever quack that we prefer and trust on national television that tells us that we really should not wear masks and couldn't wear them effectively, and they'd make us super sick because we'd be stupid about it and are completely untrainable (oh, and they're needed for health workers) -- no, wait, we should all wear masks, even if they're just thin pieces of cotton -- no, wait, even kids should wear at least two masks, even if they're running track and passing out.

[gjsman-1000]

What is the greater evil here? The slight odds of infection when they are likely outdoors, or that they are running track, passing out, getting dehydrated, breathing high levels of CO2, and the unknown long-term health effects of that?

It doesn't take much common sense to realize that exposure to virus is bad, masking while running is potentially much worse for everyone and not just the odd infection, and that it should be a choice if there are two evils.

[phonypc]

Masking doesn't change your CO2 status. Or dehydrate you.

Outdoor masking, outside the context of something like a crowded concert, is probably silly. But we can be pretty confident it won't affect your respiratory health.

[dragonwriter]

> The slight odds of infection when they are likely outdoors, or that they are running track, passing out, getting dehydrated, breathing high levels of CO2, and the unknown long-term health effects of that?

Unless you are wearing something like an SCBA mask without an appropriate air supply—which is very much not the masking recommended against COVID—that’s not going to happen, even while exercising strenuously.

> It doesn't take much common sense to realize that exposure to virus is bad, masking while running is potentially much worse for everyone

You are correct, having that “realization” definitely requires very little common sense.

[maxerickson]

I realize that in a few cities people are pushing for universal outdoor masking, but I don't think that measure is all that widely supported by public health officials.

[anonymouse008]

Because if you saw just how “imperfect” the data was… you’d borderline call it willful negligence and demand a recall/revolution.

The person running an excel sheet at a state public health office has never had to “clean” data to find duplicates with St and Street… heck even the IRS website needed your exact address in ST or Street form (case sensitive) to inform you of a economic relief payment.

So in a way, I’m very happy our brightest minds are working on clicking ads rather than building an oppressive regime.

[gjsman-1000]

"But there is just a lot we don’t know."

Well... as a citizen, I should have the right to stay back and watch what happens, and take it when I feel safe, instead of being forced to join the experiment.

[roland35]

You definitely have that right, but at this point the choice isn't vaccine vs no vaccine, it is vaccine vs getting covid. It is much more contagious than it was last year.

[gunapologist99]

Your logic gate is faulty; it sounds like you are concluding that you will definitely get covid if you are not vaccinated, but that still depends on a number of things; people can get deliveries and work out of their home and never get it. It is also demonstrably incorrect that the vaccine is an amulet of proof against covid.

[_y5hn]

Ditto. When lockdown cease the contagion will spread much more widely. Everyone will be exposed to some of it. What matters are fewer critical conditions and less spread from vaccinated.

[igetspam]

Just as long as you stay away from the rest of us, I agree. In fact, I'd pitch in to a fund aimed at shipping you all to desert island together and letting you return when you decide to like the science.

[peteradio]

I'm naturally immune asshole. Science tells me I should avoid a treatment which is more likely to cause no benefit to anyone.