856
New Covid wave has begun and masks should be worn again, scientists warn
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
856 points (92.7% liked)
World News
32297 readers
941 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cloth masks were always supposed to be a stopgap measure until vaccines or increased N95 production was available.
People will not mask up again, and quite frankly, shouldn't have to, especially if they're not going to use ones that are actually effective.
The pharma companies jacked up the price of the vaccines knowing future waves were coming and yearly boosters would be necessary.
My point is: whether you think people should mask up again or not, it's just not going to happen, but the actual paths forward, either mandatory vaccinations or at least cheap and readily accessed shots for the willing won't happen either without government intervention.
But let's be bluntly honest, people's behaviour has nothing to do with the efficacy of masks. They won't wear a mask, regardless of efficacy, because they simply do not want to. And they do not care if they spread disease.
This is obvious by all the folks with their nose sticking out
There are many, many people who gladly masked up until the vaccines were out and then stopped when they got their shots, like all reasonable medical professionals suggested, and now won't go back because they've kept up their boosters and it's unreasonable to insist on it.
But, you're right, the other kind, who aren't vaxxed and never masked, won't do their part out of spite, and the only solution for them is mandatory vaccinations or complete social pariahhood, and only one of those is realistically possible.
I did not live in the timeline where medical professionals advised people to stop masking after recieving the vaccine. Because that didn't actually happen. Masks were recommended long after the vaccines rolled out. And really, were never advised against.
Vaccines protect you, masks protect others from you. And the two operate on entirely different mechanisms and can be layered for greater efficacy at combating the virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510705/
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html#:~:text=Generally%2C%20if%20you%20are%20up,protect%20yourself%20from%20COVID%2D19.
I'm sorry, what is it that you think those links say? Neither of them advise against masking.
The first says that cloth masks are advised against for healthcare workers, because they are not up to medical requirements. They still have value in community use, because any cut in rate of transmission is valuable.
The second says that masks are not needed in outdoor settings, because the risk of transmission is lowered already. Masks would make the risk even lower still, but there is an amount of risk most people are willing to accept. Still not advising against masking.
They both say it's unnecessary for vaccinated people, and the first one directly calls cloth masks a last resort when nothing better is available.
You can wear your security blanket if you want though, it's a free country.
I am so tired of you people.
It probably does get tiresome to talk to strawmen all day, I understand your frustration.
You linked to advice that says:
"Generally, if you are up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you do not need to wear a mask in outdoor settings. Check your local COVID-19 hospital admission level for recommendations on when to wear a mask indoors and additional precautions you can take to protect yourself from COVID-19. If you are immunocompromised or more likely to get very sick from COVID-19, learn more about how to protect yourself."
That just isn't the same thing as saying it's unnecessary for vaccinated people.
Those words don't mean the thing you say they mean.
Have you checked your local hospital admissions level, fam? That's actually a neat little hyperlink if you'd look at the site.
Can you at least come up with better insults than security blanket?
I think the worse part of the pandemic was realizing that anti-maskers and the like have 0 creativity or humor and just how tiresome hearing the same 4 insults over and over was. It was like having an item not scan at the register and the customer say "it must be free" for the 30th time that day... But on a national scale.
Like you could call masks face huggers and make fun of people about to get a chest burster. You could call them stale air enthusiasts. You can call them breath checkers, mint reminders, mobile napkins. Possibilities are endless!
But no, we gotta put up with the whole anti-mask crowd and the like not only spreading misinformation and germs. But also being so un-creative and such sheep that they can only parrot the same 4 insults on rotation. Like at least make me chuckle or smirk instead of just boring me.
Is it really too much to ask for the anti-mask crowd and similar movements to just bring their game up a little bit above facebook mom minion level humor? I really don't think I'm asking for much here considering crazy conspiracy people in the early 2000's had some pretty funny zingers they'd dish out, and nearly every insult I got was unique. I miss that
I'm not anti-mask. I wore one, a medical mask until I could get enough N95s to cycle mind you because I'm both literate and care about results over appearances, until I got the vaccine, and then I stopped, like a reasonable informed adult not engaging in security theater.
But the immuno-compromised are of course welcome to their needed N95s, since liberal nations don't have the balls or desire to actually protect their most vulnerable citizens with a universal vaccination mandate.
Once again. Masks were not for your own protection, they were mostly for the protection of others from you.
So... If you took your mask off at the earliest convenience, once you were reasonably safe, it's very hard to take your concern for the immuno-compromised particularly seriously.
The fact that you self-describe your actions as that of a "reasonable informed adult" makes me wonder if you even understood other people's motivations at all.
(Edit, typos)
And wearing two condoms will make your partner safer, and every health professional will agree that yes, that's safer, but it isn't necessary or reasonable and they won't ask you to do that.
What? No, it doesn't. Wearing two condoms makes them more likely to break due to friction. I know it was supposed to be analogy, but for the love of all that is good, do not do that.
I think you pretty much made my point for me there.
Funny, you made mine just fine too.
That doesn't even make sense. It's just "no u".
I also understand why you would find it confusing.
I didn't find it confusing, it was just non-sequitur. But you clearly don't know how to read.
Ha, said the guy who doesn't know what a non-sequitur is.
I think people think "outdoor settings" means "not at home".
That's weird. My girlfriend got another booster yesterday in Canada for free.
Rub it in, why don't ya.
(You won't see the outrageous profiteering of their new pricing directly, but don't worry, you're still impacted, even if your tax rates are a bit more sensible)
That's your take from what I said?
That's what your comment implies, yes, that the costs don't matter because you don't see them.
What do you think your comment implies?
I just said that that's weird, because just yesterday we went and didn't have to pay. Just giving insight to the fact it's not a paid thing everywhere.
Seems like Americans still haven't learned that the internet is GLOBAL. Saying:
without any context of where you live, means I can take it anyway I want. So maybe this person lives in Canada, and I commented that it's weird because my shot was free in Canada yesterday. Stop treating the internet as if it's a US only thing. State where you're from. State the currency you're using (news flash, $ is not American).
Stop being !usdefaultism@lemmy.world
I'm happy to see "fuck you, I got mine" is alive and well internationally, but why that was your first response to a plague vaccine being inaccessible to the masses should be up for question.
Glad to see you took my comment and turned it into something to hate me for.
I just said that that's weird, because just yesterday we went and didn't have to pay. Just giving insight to the fact it's not a paid thing everywhere.
Seems like Americans still haven't learned that the internet is GLOBAL. Saying:
without any context of where you live, means I can take it anyway I want. So maybe this person lives in Canada, and I commented that it's weird because my shot was free in Canada yesterday. Stop treating the internet as if it's a US only thing. State where you're from. State the currency you're using (news flash, $ is not American).
Stop being !usdefaultism@lemmy.world
Someone is paying for it. The manufacturer is not just giving it away for free. That means your taxes are going towards it.
Oh no my taxes are being spent to save lives?! The horror!!
That isn't contradictory with what that person said.
Things have costs, even things that are free at point-of-service. Often, those costs are worth it. It's not as if they said that any use of tax money for any purpose is a horror.
Oh shit, blast from the past. Haven't heard this libertarian talking point in a while.
Every time someone gets a free beer, the libertarians point out that there is no such thing as free beer. Except that's not true: They don't mind free beer usually, it's almost always some social program that's "not free". Hey guess what: Everybody already knows that vaccines do not grow on trees. No need to explain this. Libertarians just hate social programs because they are ~~selfish pricks~~ rugged individuals.
This might be a wild take, but your taxes shouldn't be subject to profiteering just because it's to save lives. They should instead, at a minimum, be subject to reasonable price caps to combat racketeering.
Edit: Especially when Canada is only vulnerable to it in the first place thanks to neoliberal policies privatizing Connaught Labs, gutting their research and quality, yet still somehow increasing prices.
How's that boot taste?
Not sure why people say this like it's a surprise or somehow bad. Paying for public health measures, or just healthcare in general is way better than where a lot of tax revenue winds up.
Not saying it's bad that taxes pay for it. What's bad is when manufacturers keep raising rates to pad their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer money. That means taxes are being shifted to their profits rather than other programs. GP was saying they didn't care that rates went up because it was "free" to them.
Fair point. I would say that something similar happens with private insurance as well. I don't claim to have the solution for greed but it sure would be nice to enjoy a system where health outcomes take priority over profit.
The reason it's bad is because it has got to be unreasonably expensive.
Americans pay the same taxes.