Face mask is more guaranteed to protect against covid than a vaccine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
CDC director Dr Robert Redfield said today before a senate subcommittee

"that this face mask, is more guaranteed to protect me against covid, than when I take a covid vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be only 70%"

www.dailymail.co.uk

Masks 'more guaranteed' to prevent covid than vaccines, CDC head says

'I might say this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against covid than when I take a vaccine' said Dr Robert Redfield during his Wednesday testimony before a Senate subcommittee.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

see quote at 1min 40sec
He also says at the very beginning that all people should still wear a mask even after a vaccine.
 
Last edited:
Anitram said:
Has anyone told Noel Gallagher? He's refusing to wear one, saying that if he gets Covid-19 it'll be his own fault. Someone needs to tell him that it's actually more about him not spreading it if he does.
Click to expand...
Hi Anitram,

The CDC director Dr Robert Redfield is actually saying the very same thing as Noel Gallagher and not the opposite. He's saying masks protect the wearer (himself). So if Noel doesn't want to wear a mask, in that sense, he's quite right, if he thinks it only effects him and not those around him.

I however understand it (as you do Anitram) the other way around, the manufacturers state quite clearly on their packaging that masks offer no protection against covid19 to the wearer. Masks may however help protect those around someone who is infectious (not just testing positive).

It does however raise the question that, if masks offer no protection to the wearer and according to Dr Robert Redfield masks (which offer no protection) offer more protection than a vaccine, it doesn't give much hope for the vaccines.
 
Last edited:
Anitram said:
The Government ads on TV at the moment are pushing the message 'I wear a mask to protect my mates'.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that's how many of us understand it too.

The CDC chap says the opposite, they protect the wearer.
 
Perhaps the CDC guy is framing it that way to persuade the selfish to wear a mask? They might not care about people around them but they might be more interested in protecting themselves.

It’s surprising how many people don’t think about others. Yesterday I stood aside to leave 2 metres for an elderly lady to walk past me and she said, “Oh, it’s ok - I’m not worried [about Covid]” walking inches from me. I had to stop myself replying “Well, I am”.

Regarding the vaccine, yes I think we’ll still need to take additional measures to protect ourselves and each other.
 
Amity Island said:
Yes, I think that's how many of us understand it too.

The CDC chap says the opposite, they protect the wearer.
Click to expand...

Be interested where he got that data from.

Much of the science I’ve seen around face coverings seems to suggest it only reduces risk of infection by ~20%... but reduces the spreading of the virus FROM the wearer by ~80% (if the wearer is infectious, of course)
 
Current thinking is that you are more likely to catch the virus at home,than sitting in a bar or restaurant without a mask ,socially distanced.
Closure or a 10 pm curfew on bars and restaurants is going to force people back into their homes....what are they thinking?

surely using that logic keeping bars open 24/7 would be safer than sending people home..............
 
atoll said:
Current thinking is that you are more likely to catch the virus at home,than sitting in a bar or restaurant without a mask ,socially distanced.
Closure or a 10 pm curfew on bars and restaurants is going to force people back into their homes....what are they thinking?

surely using that logic keeping bars open 24/7 would be safer than sending people home..............
Click to expand...
Atoll,
Given that fact, why do you think they are really locking towns and cities down?
 
Amity Island said:
Atoll,
Given that fact, why do you think they are really locking towns and cities down?
Click to expand...
To flatten the curve so hospitals don't get overrun,as there are many idiots who think mask wearing and social distancing does not apply to them ,partly due to the high incidence of covid denial pundits on social media,and some who really don't give a s###t for their fellow man.
 
atoll said:
To flatten the curve so hospitals don't get overrun,as there are many idiots who think mask wearing and social distancing does not apply to them ,partly due to the high incidence of covid denial pundits on social media,and some who really don't give a s###t for their fellow man.
Click to expand...
Yes it seems, alchohol and discipline don't mix very well.
 
I’ve just ordered a Blackburn Rovers face mask. That should reduce my chances (marginally) of getting Covid, but will increase my chances of getting my crutches kicked from under me by any local Burnley supporters. Oh well, what the hell.o_O
 
Hmmm it was too long ago since i took statistics nor do i fully understand vaccine efficacy but that doesnt right. Sounds like bad maths, one percentage looks at how effective a vaccine is expected to be in a population and the other one about how effective a facemask is whilst worn by an individual (i.e. when it is not worn it has an efficacy of 0%). Vaccination is always about getting a large percentage of the population vaccinated, so we are talking about what is right for a population.

50% effective vaccination of a population must be far better than a 65% effectiveness of a face mask, unless no one ever takes the face mask off, everyone always washes their hands after touching the mask and so on... You miss it for 1 second at the wrong time and you have got it
Basically, a minimum of 50% of the population protected no matter what vs 65% protection which completely relies on the each individual to follow the rules, every single day...

Now this is US acceptance level, but still that is just stating the lowest level of efficacy that they will approve for any vaccine.... It does not mean that ANY vaccine will come in that low, it may come in at a much higher level. So it is very disingenuous to say that a facemask is better protection than a vaccine (also a single vaccine may have an efficacy of 99%) but I bet all the anti-vaxxers love that news
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top