Pandemic 2020
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
- Status
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
If everyone in the theatre was wearing face masks, the distance and spread of aerosols drops dramatically during talking or coughing. The better the mask, the less distance the viral load for an infectious dose travels. Even a simple three layer cloth mask reduces travel.
Human Research Study of Particulate Propagation Distance From Human Respiratory Function
This human research study quantifies the effect of face coverings on the reduction of droplet and aerosol emission from human respiratory function. Speech
academic.oup.com
If you want to protect yourself, N95 respirator is far better - with some conditions attached to it. Fit testing for a quality seal being the most important and I have come across articles where it is discussed that a surgical mask may be more protective if the N95 is not fitting properly.
What doctors wish patients knew about wearing N95 masks
The CDC recommends N95 or KN95 masks in public indoor spaces to best protect against SARS-CoV-2. Two doctors share their tips on using these masks.
www.ama-assn.org
I did read another article that discussed the benefits of wearing a surgical mask over top of a proper fitting N95 so velocity of aerosols was lowered and allowed better filtration, but goes a bit beyond the question.
Enforcing mask use is really tough, it would be nice if a kind reminder was all it took. The world could really use a bit more compassion for each other right about now.
TLDR; Yes, wearing a mask will provide some level of protection for you in a theater.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Frankly I'd rather be able to turn away folks for displaying covid symptoms than require them to wear masks. We have required masks continually, and also required vax or negative test for some time. What drives me nuts is when people come in masked, and then start coughing and sneezing a bunch (sometimes even removing their masks in the process). These people should stay the fk home, not come to the theater. But hey, they just spend $30 a ticket to watch their grand kids perform in the Nutcracker for 5-minutes, so they can't stay home and miss that, even if it means getting other people sick. That said, yes mask enforcement sucks. Myself and my staff have been threatened and berated for requiring people to wear masks during events. We're all pretty much over mandating it.If everyone in the theatre was wearing face masks, the distance and spread of aerosols drops dramatically during talking or coughing. The better the mask, the less distance the viral load for an infectious dose travels. Even a simple three layer cloth mask reduces travel.
Human Research Study of Particulate Propagation Distance From Human Respiratory Function
This human research study quantifies the effect of face coverings on the reduction of droplet and aerosol emission from human respiratory function. Speech
If you want to protect yourself, N95 respirator is far better - with some conditions attached to it. Fit testing for a quality seal being the most important and I have come across articles where it is discussed that a surgical mask may be more protective if the N95 is not fitting properly.
What doctors wish patients knew about wearing N95 masks
The CDC recommends N95 or KN95 masks in public indoor spaces to best protect against SARS-CoV-2. Two doctors share their tips on using these masks.
I did read another article that discussed the benefits of wearing a surgical mask over top of a proper fitting N95 so velocity of aerosols was lowered and allowed better filtration, but goes a bit beyond the question.
Enforcing mask use is really tough, it would be nice if a kind reminder was all it took. The world could really use a bit more compassion for each other right about now.
TLDR; Yes, wearing a mask will provide some level of protection for you in a theater.
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Not wanting to bump that other thread; with all the talk of strokes and the insinuation that vaccines may be the cause, I find it strange that COVID itself is seemingly ignored to push a certain narrative. Lots of studies on this, as well as cardiovascular risks. After vaccination, inflammation measured increases that could be an issue for some people, but returns to baseline levels within 48 hours of vaccination.
www.nature.com
COVID increases stroke risk in people:
healthcare.utah.edu
.
The effect of an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 on endothelial function and arterial stiffness - Hypertension Research
Overview of study results describing the effect of the COVID-19 vaccine on endothelial function and arterial stiffness
www.nature.com
COVID increases stroke risk in people:
COVID-19 Increasing Stroke Risks in People of All Ages
The COVID-19 pandemic has been unpredictable as more is learned about the varied side effects of the virus. One surprising finding is the heightened risk of stroke and heart attack—and not just for older adults.
healthcare.utah.edu
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Right, because the spike protein is known to thicken blood. This is the same reason that both the jab and also covid cause myocarditis, because they both elicit the spike protein. The thing is, I can't choose to avoid the spike protein when getting covid, but I can avoid the jab. It's also pretty well known that the efficacy of the jab is only a couple of months. Even if you give it three months of efficacy, you're getting jabbed 4-times a year, and continually getting your body hammered by the spike protein. How much on that ongoing onslaught do you think your system will take before it folds under pressure? It took me three years to get covid, and frankly it wasn't that bad. I now have more lasting immunity compared to the jab. Sure, maybe I'll get covid again in a year or so, but at least I won't have made a poor choice in getting jabbed 4-times in the same year, and won't have continually had the spike protein running through my system, and crossing the blood brain barrier. Things to think about.Not wanting to bump that other thread; with all the talk of strokes and the insinuation that vaccines may be the cause, I find it strange that COVID itself is seemingly ignored to push a certain narrative. Lots of studies on this, as well as cardiovascular risks. After vaccination, inflammation measured increases that could be an issue for some people, but returns to baseline levels within 48 hours of vaccination.
The effect of an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 on endothelial function and arterial stiffness - Hypertension Research
Overview of study results describing the effect of the COVID-19 vaccine on endothelial function and arterial stiffness
COVID increases stroke risk in people:
.COVID-19 Increasing Stroke Risks in People of All Ages
The COVID-19 pandemic has been unpredictable as more is learned about the varied side effects of the virus. One surprising finding is the heightened risk of stroke and heart attack—and not just for older adults.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Some pretty bold claims, I trust you have sources to show that your claims are valid? Are you saying the immunity that someone receives after natural infection is more lasting in someone who has had both the vaccine and natural infection?
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Yes. No.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
We'll call it 3-month efficacy, ok?..
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
In regard to my other claim which you bolded in-question, here you go:
www.science.org
Science | AAAS
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Okay, so after 3 months the vaccine efficacy to infection is around 50%, the level that the yearly flu vaccine is generally around. The protection against (that more clear for you bam?) the risk of hospitalization due to serious disease caused by covid is still above 80% after 4 months. So the advice to people that want to stay out of the hospital due to serious disease is still to get vaccinated, as shown by your link.
Last edited:
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Let me ask you then.. How often do you believe that people should get boosted?
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
So, this link says that people over 50 should get re-boosted every 4-months, are you guys good with that number?..
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Vaccinated and natural infection offers the highest level of protection.In regard to my other claim which you bolded in-question, here you go:
Science | AAAS
"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated. "
"In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated."
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
No, it does not say that.So, this link says that people over 50 should get re-boosted every 4-months, are you guys good with that number?..
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
I am not a cheerleader nor defender for big pharma, once the data indicate that the positive benefits of vaccination cease to exist, I will happily accept and promote that. Follow the data and experts that can translate it to the common folk like myself, that's the only thing guiding my viewpoint.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
If you refer back, I never claimed to debate that specific scenario. Please try to stay on topic.
Yes in fact it does:
Yes, but you do not consider it within a vacuum either. You have to consider other consequences as well.
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Your claim of lasting immunity compared to vaccination is not accurate though, can't look at it in a vacuum as you say. You have better and longer immunity with vaccination compared to natural infection only, as I posted directly from your article. Sounds very similar to what Aaron Rogers tried to slide by everyone with, word play.
And No, it does not state getting a booster shot every 4 months.
"Following FDA’s regulatory action today, CDC is updating its recommendations to allow certain immunocompromised individuals and people over the age of 50 who received an initial booster dose at least 4 months ago to be eligible for another mRNA booster to increase their protection against severe disease from COVID-19. Separately and in addition, based on newly published data, adults who received a primary vaccine and booster dose of Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 vaccine at least 4 months ago may now receive a second booster dose using an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine."
Last edited:
- Status