There is also bodily vigor to consider. When you are strong you are resistant. When you are weak you are susceptible. The difference can be huge. It's a good argument for clean living, regular exercise etc.
When I was sixteen I sailed a lot on the lakes in my neighborhood. I was strong and healthy and thought: what could microbes do against 1 meter 90 of me? So I drank the water from the lake to see what would happen. I became rather sick to my stomach :-) and I considered defeat
The claim was increased resilience, not perfect immunity.
This is one of the reasons why masks are so important and why they don't need to be 100% effective. Just reducing the amount of viral load could turn a serious infection into something you might barely notice. edit: Imagine this being controversial. I didn't realize there were Covid deniers and skeptics here, because what I've stated is completely within established science.
What you said isn’t controversial. It’s definitely right. The issue with masks is one side started treating them like a talisman that makes infection impossible, which provoked the other side to say they do nothing. On a population level, masks are probably close to ineffective against a viral pathogen. You can read the relevant Cochrane review to see that. On an individual level they obviously do something, but you…
which provoked the other side to say they do nothing.
This somewhat excuses their reactionary stupidity. Like they weren't "provoked", the use of masks wasn't directed at them.
Great to see statistical thinking. There have been a lot of Covid shouting matches because people are trying to reduce things to binary. Masks don’t work! Actually, they work as advertised- only 95% effective at best (and a cloth mask may be 30%), not a binary protected or not. That’s effective at blocking particles. You are still guaranteed to get some virus particles. They are going to be in your respiratory tract…
Actually N95 is AT LEAST 95% effective. 95% is its worst case performance on a PM2.5 sized particle, at all other particle sizes it is better than 95% usually considerably. We also have N99 masks and even P100 respirators which do an even better job. We just need to start using them. We also need to educate ourselves how to fit and fit test a mask because if its leaking its not giving you that level of protection.
you're absolutely correct and furthermore smaller particles and larger particles are easier for the masks to catch to state it differently if it wasn't clear.
That’s not vaccination that’s inoculation which is how they originally prevented smallpox before they developed an actual vaccine
Its responsive to the parent question in that yes, we can have symptomless exposure to the infectious agent (or some part of it) and develop immunity. Maybe the distinction between using unweakened live pathogens and weakened or fragmented pathogens should have been emphasized but that didn't seem to the important part of the question
Thanks, that was indeed my question.
It'd be interesting to understand if that's true for all viruses and in what quantities.
For example, in the early days of COVID, we were told that being close to infected people outdoor did not expose us to enough viruses to get infected. Could such exposure have provided immunity?
> For a surgical mask it was essentially nil. Is the surgeon wearing a mask to protect himself from me, or to protect me from him?
The surgeon is wearing it because of an old, old misinterpretation of reality. This article is factually accurate: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
Your assessment is a non-sequitur to the article.
Surgeons wear masks to protect the patient, because masks are very effective at trapping both droplets and aerosols that are emitted from the wearer. They are not designed to protect the user from lingering aerosols as masks are too loose to form a good seal, so most air breathed in simply enters from around the sides of the mask.
This is one of the reasons why masks are so important and why they don't need to be 100% effective. Just reducing the amount of viral load could turn a serious infection into something you might barely notice. edit: Imagine this being controversial. I didn't realize there were Covid deniers and skeptics here, because what I've stated is completely within established science.
There shouldn’t be any requirements for masks. Want to wear one? Great. Should I have to? No.
So people shouldn't have freedom of association or control over their own property?
Or do you just mean universal requirements imposed by society at large when you say 'any'?
What you said isn’t controversial. It’s definitely right. The issue with masks is one side started treating them like a talisman that makes infection impossible, which provoked the other side to say they do nothing. On a population level, masks are probably close to ineffective against a viral pathogen. You can read the relevant Cochrane review to see that. On an individual level they obviously do something, but you…
The un-cited Cochrane review in question does not say that. From Cochrane.org: Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce ... - Cochrane Mar 10, 2023 Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearin…
It looks like FFP3 are analogous to N99 masks.
A mask mandate that permits "wrap a piece of T-shirt over your mouth, some of the time, sometimes even covering your nose" (which is not far from what I saw for much of 2020) is, unsurprisingly, going to be more effective at ensuring grudging compliance with a mandate than it is to reduce the spread of an airborne virus.
> boosting ourantibody response What I wonder is if we can develop immunity (not boosting, assuming never been infected before) from being exposed to small doses, or do we need at least one full blown infection.
Yep that's called vaccination! No need to get a full blown infection it's how we eradicated smallpox
I’ve gotten lots of anti vaxxers to be into vaccines by saying what the parent said, most of them are just allergic to the word vaccine and don’t know what it means, (specifically I’m referring to using dead pathogens not just a low dosage of live ones)
so just describe the procedure, and call it a secret that big pharma doesnt want them to know, and theyre into it. be anybody but a doctor lol
What you said isn’t controversial. It’s definitely right. The issue with masks is one side started treating them like a talisman that makes infection impossible, which provoked the other side to say they do nothing. On a population level, masks are probably close to ineffective against a viral pathogen. You can read the relevant Cochrane review to see that. On an individual level they obviously do something, but you…
which provoked the other side to say they do nothing. This somewhat excuses their reactionary stupidity. Like they weren't "provoked", the use of masks wasn't directed at them.
Where I live, in Alameda County, California, masks were required outdoors if you were within 30 feet of another person. This ridiculous policy lasted about a year and provoked all kinds of altercations. It also made exercise, a key way to say fit, much more difficult. So, in this case I would argue mask use was in fact “directed at” people.
> A tiny enough dose may even serve to remind our immune system of a pathogen’s existence, boosting our antibody response to keep us protected against it. This article should be required reading, whatever your views on Covid and other conditions. Although the attack method of the infection is significant, and the potential victim’s defenses are significant, the raw quantity of infectious agent and the exposure rate a…
This is one of the reasons why masks are so important and why they don't need to be 100% effective. Just reducing the amount of viral load could turn a serious infection into something you might barely notice. edit: Imagine this being controversial. I didn't realize there were Covid deniers and skeptics here, because what I've stated is completely within established science.
The simple fact of the matter is that having covid every now and then^ is far superior to wearing a mask always.
^ and the more you have it the less severe it is, until it asymptotically reaches a complete non-issue. As with the common cold.