Infected don't usually spread it

nice little pareto principle

aggiebrad94 said:

---

Infected don't usually spread it

---

If I read that right it seems like it is saying ALL infected can spread it, its just that they need to be in an indoors or unprotected population during one or two specific days during their illness to spread it widely. THey relied on computer simulations to determine this, but I guess it seems obvious that if a person is alone or in a small household, vs at a choir practice or meat packing plant, they won't spread it nearly as much - if at all.

i would love for this to be true, but the numbers seem to suggest this virus spreads easily...how can the concepts be so different?

some people are super spreaders

this has been observed and speculated on since the Wuhan data started coming out

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

I think the takeaway from this study is that anyone could be a super spreader if they were in the right place at the right time. So social distancing and not having large gatherings is probably the most important strategy.

amercer said:

---

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

---

A contradiction in terms...

Not a very strong assertion of the benefits of mask-wearing.

Let's say you have a group of 100 people.

Let's say 10 of those people live alone and don't infect anyone.

Let's say 50 of those people infect 1 person, someone they live with.

Let's say 20 of those people infect 2 people, maybe two people they live with or someone they live with and someone outside of the home.

Let's say 10 of those people infect 4 people. Perhaps they live with larger families or have social interactions with a lot of people.

Now let's say the final 10 get out an about a lot, spending time in close quarters indoors with groups. These people infect 10 others each.


60 of our 100 people infected 0 or 1 persons.

But there are still 230 infections generated by our group of 100 infected individuals.


It only takes a few individuals going out at precisely the wrong times in the course of their infection.

buffalo chip said:

---

amercer said:

---

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

---

A contradiction in terms...

Not a very strong assertion of the benefits of mask-wearing.

---

So the thing about marginal effects, they can become quite substantial in large numbers. Unfortunately in this country we aren't all on the same team.

Quote:

---

So the thing about marginal effects, they can become quite substantial in large numbers.

---

Then by definition they wouldn't be marginal

I'm pretty sure that's what the article said

Here is the paper

Wrong person, place and time: viral load and contact network structure predict SARS-CoV-2 transmission and super-spreading events

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.07.20169920v2.full.pdf

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to contain because most transmissions occur during the pre- symptomatic phase of infection. Moreover, in contrast to influenza, while most SARS-CoV-2 infected people do not transmit the virus to anybody, a small percentage secondarily infect large numbers of people.

We designed mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza which link observed viral shedding patterns with key epidemiologic features of each virus, including distributions of the number of secondary cases attributed to each infected person (individual R0) and the duration between symptom onset in the transmitter and secondarily infected person (serial interval).

We identify that people with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza infections are usually contagious for fewer than two days congruent with peak viral load several days after infection, and that transmission is unlikely below a certain viral load. SARS-CoV-2 super-spreader events with over 10 secondary infections occur when an infected person is briefly shedding at a very high viral load and has a high concurrent number of exposed contacts.

The higher predisposition of SARS-CoV-2 towards super-spreading events is not due to its 1-2 additional weeks of viral shedding relative to influenza. Rather, a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 exposes more people within equivalent physical contact networks than a person infected with influenza, likely due to aerosolization of virus.

Our results support policies that limit crowd size in indoor spaces and provide viral load benchmarks for infection control and therapeutic interventions intended to prevent secondary transmission.

buffalo chip said:

---

amercer said:

---

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

---

A contradiction in terms...

Not a very strong assertion of the benefits of mask-wearing.

---

The author believes (and rightfully so when you consider the range of public health measures which have be taken) that wearing masks when indoors is a "marginal difference". He isn't saying that wearing masks offers a marginal benefit in the fight to get this under control.

on the spectrum from A wuhan style "weld you inside your apartment" to "screw the virus, it is a hoax and let's encourage everyone to live like the before times", limiting large gatherings and wearing masks any time you are indoors is only marginally different from the before times.

amercer said:

---

buffalo chip said:

---

amercer said:

---

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

---

A contradiction in terms...

Not a very strong assertion of the benefits of mask-wearing.

---

So the thing about marginal effects, they can become quite substantial in large numbers. Unfortunately in this country we aren't all on the same team.

---

I never said anything about a team. You did. I wear a mask when I am in a public space. I am not an "anti-masker", and my analysis did not say that I was.

Marginal means marginal, not quiet substantial. It cannot be transmogrified into something that it is not. Especially when you are espousing the exact opposite meaning of the word.

IMO, masks are likely no longer required to keep our ICUs okay if you follow data of other countries and where we are from a percentage infected standpoint. I can understand Abbott delaying this for a few more weeks to not take the risk, but I think overall we will be fine. And especially in a few weeks when we have even more immunity among the community, other than mass gatherings.

I think they are still potentially wise at mass gatherings and if we have football. Maybe 25% capacity and at least require masks when out of your seat. Walking next to each other at concessions, the gate, restroom. But not to wear all game long if you have some space between you and the next people. Which we can do at 25%. Now, at 50%, maybe people will have to wear them at your seats too. But with eating/drinking, etc., in Texas heat. It will be tough to enforce either way. You just slowly sip your water all game long.

But again, quick trips to HEB? When visiting a handful of friends, etc? They aren't the difference in overwhelming our hospitals at this time, and definitely not in 4-6 weeks IMO. Even if Abbott removes the mandate, you'll still have 30, 40, maybe 50% of people and businesses wear them. More compliance than even Sweden right now.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

buffalo chip said:

---

amercer said:

---

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

---

A contradiction in terms...

Not a very strong assertion of the benefits of mask-wearing.

---

The author believes (and rightfully so when you consider the range of public health measures which have be taken) that wearing masks when indoors is a "marginal difference". He isn't saying that wearing masks offers a marginal benefit in the fight to get this under control.

on the spectrum from A wuhan style "weld you inside your apartment" to "screw the virus, it is a hoax and let's encourage everyone to live like the before times", limiting large gatherings and wearing masks any time you are indoors is only marginally different from the before times.

---

You start your reply by quoting a phrase that does not appear in the quote from the article used in this thread. Interesting.

As to your second assertion, I wholeheartedly disagree. Our society has been turned upside down, largely as a result of our response to the appearance of the China virus. Limiting large gatherings includes, among many other limitations, college football. Not a marginally different limitation IMHO. As to wearing a mask at all times when indoors, WOW! You and I do not agree on the meaning of "marginally different" (quoted from your reply, not the article).

beerad12man said:

---

IMO, masks are likely no longer required to keep our ICUs okay if you follow data of other countries and where we are from a percentage infected standpoint. I can understand Abbott delaying this for a few more weeks to not take the risk, but I think overall we will be fine. And especially in a few weeks when we have even more immunity among the community, other than mass gatherings.

I think they are still potentially wise at mass gatherings and if we have football. Maybe 25% capacity and at least require masks when out of your seat. Walking next to each other at concessions, the gate, restroom. But not to wear all game long if you have some space between you and the next people. Which we can do at 25%. Now, at 50%, maybe people will have to wear them at your seats too. But with eating/drinking, etc., in Texas heat. It will be tough to enforce either way. You just slowly sip your water all game long.

But again, quick trips to HEB? When visiting a handful of friends, etc? They aren't the difference in overwhelming our hospitals at this time, and definitely not in 4-6 weeks IMO. Even if Abbott removes the mandate, you'll still have 30, 40, maybe 50% of people and businesses wear them. More compliance than even Sweden right now.

---

Went to Scheels (aaahhhhgain! Go there way too much but it's awesome!) and yes, wore my mask. Even finally bought a cloth A&M one. But saw a few (like less than 5%) with no mask at all. First time I have noticed this since before July. There was a couple that did not have one all and had no signs of having come in with one. Maybe they put them in their pockets. As I am not a big mask guy, didn't bother me. But saw this a few other places too. I think over the next few weeks it'll start becoming a bit more common. Some may have already caught it. Others will feel we have reached the point you have mentioned. And retailers are probably getting tired of having to police the mask policy. I was at the Disney Store where there was a worker making sure people had their faces fully covered (a parent had the mask below their nose). So it just depends on the store. All of these places are in Collin Cnty.

buffalo chip said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

buffalo chip said:

---

amercer said:

---

Dr. Schiffer encourages continued mask use and avoiding large gatherings and crowds.
"The difference between areas in the world where they're controlling this and where they're not, is very marginal," said Dr. Schiffer. "It's the average of human behaviors across everybody. So, everybody needs to play their part."

---

A contradiction in terms...

Not a very strong assertion of the benefits of mask-wearing.

---

The author believes (and rightfully so when you consider the range of public health measures which have be taken) that wearing masks when indoors is a "marginal difference". He isn't saying that wearing masks offers a marginal benefit in the fight to get this under control.

on the spectrum from A wuhan style "weld you inside your apartment" to "screw the virus, it is a hoax and let's encourage everyone to live like the before times", limiting large gatherings and wearing masks any time you are indoors is only marginally different from the before times.

---

You start your reply by quoting a phrase that does not appear in the quote from the article used in this thread. Interesting.

As to your second assertion, I wholeheartedly disagree. Our society has been turned upside down, largely as a result of our response to the appearance of the China virus. Limiting large gatherings includes, among many other limitations, college football. Not a marginally different limitation IMHO. As to wearing a mask at all times when indoors, WOW! You and I do not agree on the meaning of "marginally different" (quoted from your reply, not the article).

---

Agree. Masks absolutely suck. They are uncomfortable and lead to us losing a certain level of personal connection to others. Our faces are normally our first way we communicate with other. A smile, a smirk, an expression, etc. It makes it very hard to read what a person is intending to mean by making a statement and it blocks our ability to see a person's current state. I get it. These time may require it. But, again, I also feel there are too many of those who support the use of masks that seem to want them to become a long term norm of our society, even after Covid is gotten under control. That never seems to be addressed by mask supporters.

Yeah, but I still say 25% or so will wear them for a while even with no mandates. We don't even need that, if you are asking my candid opinion. But the built in immunity we are appearing to have gained in texas, and even just 20% mask compliance, will almost assuredly be enough to keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed and to continue our downward trend. Deaths will lag, but give it 4-5 weeks and all numbers will be coming down. Short of allowing some major outbreaks at multiple nursing homes.

It is a very odd virus. While I was sick with covid-19, and before I had all the symptoms and realized I had it, I was around 7 people. My mom is 70, and I was in a car with her with windows up for 3 hours, then in close contact eating and drinking for 3 hours.

With my friends (group of 6), we were indoors eating, and outside camping, and inside at my apartment. That was over the course of 3 days.

No one caught covid-19 from me, or at least showed any symptoms.

Hopefully they all have the tcell response to where they basically can't get it. Hopefully all those studies hold true, and that for every 1 seropositive, you have 2 more who trigger responses and are basically immune(even if not 100%, enough to not spread it further). This combined of course with lasting immunity may mean an end to this sooner than most everyone realizes. Fingers crossed

Aggie95 said:

---

i would love for this to be true, but the numbers seem to suggest this virus spreads easily...how can the concepts be so different?

---

it does spread easy but most people are behaving in a manner that prevents spread for example going to in person church is not something people do as much as pre pandemic

How many of those infected actually have symptoms, let alone serious problems?

beerad12man said:

---

Yeah, but I still say 25% or so will wear them for a while even with no mandates. We don't even need that, if you are asking my candid opinion. But the built in immunity we are appearing to have gained in texas, and even just 20% mask compliance, will almost assuredly be enough to keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed and to continue our downward trend. Deaths will lag, but give it 4-5 weeks and all numbers will be coming down. Short of allowing some major outbreaks at multiple nursing homes.

---

Agree 100%