Masks more effective than vaccines

[Big RR]

Yesterday, Trump's idiocy passed on to his CDC head, when Rosenfeld stated that masks might be even more effective at stemming the spread of Covid 19 than a vaccine would be. He didn't even attempt to qualify or explain it, just gave a blanket misleading statement, which plays right into the hands of the anti-vaxers. Imagine the outcry about pumping "deadly chemicals" into kids when wearing masks would be better.

He may have a point as we don't know how effective any vaccine will be, but vaccines have served humanity well and all but eradicated some diseases that have plagued civilization for decades, if not centuries. Indeed, smallpox, once a feared scourge, has been entirely eliminated. To dismiss vaccines as being even less effective than wearing masks is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst. Hell, the guy even held up a mask and said this mask will protect me better than a vaccine, which is also misleading; that mask doesn't protect him at all (or very much), it is only the masks that others take and wear that protect him from contracting the disease.

I think the bullshit statements Trump makes are rubbing off on the rest of the government; and while I generally would never trust what a politician says (and think many agree), I would hope I could trust someone who heads up a medical organization like the CDC could be trusted and expected to speak the truth and not mislead us. Just another part of the Trump legacy.

[Scooter]

It was probably expressed sloppily, but it may be essentially true. I saw a graphic sometime back, not sure how accurate it was, that said a mask provided 70% effectiveness against transmission for the wearer, and 95% effectiveness against transmission from the wearer to those around them. Consider that regulatory agencies are looking to approve vaccines with at least 50% effectiveness. (By comparison, a "good" influenza vaccine will be 60-70% effective.) And so yes, it may be true that mask wearing ends up being more effective than a vaccine. That's not an indictment of vaccines, just a recognition of the reality that not all vaccines are capable of providing near total effectiveness. It's certainly not a reason to refuse getting a vaccine, because even 50% effectiveness, in combination with other measures (like continued mask wearing), will knock transmission down massively.

[BoSoxGal]

This ^^^^^

And Trump has done far more damage by insisting a vaccine will be widely available in a couple of months when basic maths tells us that it will take 2 years to vaccinate 330,000,000 people. Lying only undermines confidence in the vaccine program.

Given that the vaccine may only create immunity that is measured in months rather than years, it IS true that a mask on your face and on the faces of those around you is more reliably effective.

[Big RR]

Scooter--I think that is true for N95 medical grade masks, and not the cloth or paper ones ordinarily worn by the general public, where the protection (especially for the wearer, is much less. But my main concern is that the comments play right into the hands of the anti vaxers who will claim why inject ourselves and our children with all manner of chemicals and biologicals, when tying a strip of cloth around our mouth and nose will protect us just as much; that didn't work in the past, and it does not work now. Indeed, in recent times, other than for outbreaks that just went away by themselves (or for which good treatments were developed), vaccines provided the protection necessary to end the emergencies. Hell, look at natural disasters, they don't hand out masks, they vaccinate against diseases such as typhoid and typhus, and people traveling to infected areas are routinely immunized, whether they get masks or not.

And that is my concern, by all means a vaccine is not a panacea, but it's the best public health measure we have available currently to combat disease, especially highly contagious airborne ones. I would think the head of the CDC should choose his words more carefully, but in the age of Trump, people in government do not.

BSG--I agree Trump's lies and exaggeration are complete idiocy, but that does not excuse the misleading blather of the head of a respected scientific organization like the CDC. And coming from someone who should know better, this undermines the vaccine program far more than Trump ever could. But it seems everyone in government doesn't give a damn about what they say since Trump.

As for masks, think of the money that could be saved if preventing the spread of contagious diseases it was as simple as wearing a mask; sadly, it does not appear to be. Indeed, even medical worker, who have to best masks possible, contract such diseases when treating the infected. At 60 - 70% percent effectivity, a pandemic can be stopped by vaccinating enough people to stop the spread of the disease; some may still get it, but it will not spread as readily when many are immune. And if the immunity doesn't last forever (and recent papers are showing it may be much longer lived than previously thought), boosters can be used, especially among those at the highest risk levels. The public health goal is to stop the accelerating spread, and that will be accomplished by a good vaccine. We've seen it work in the past, and it will work now.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Although we sometimes see Redfield as some sort of counterweight to Trump, let's not forget that he is an evangelical Trump appointee. I've nothing against evangelicals and some of them are, despite their (IMO) wrongheadedness, extraordinary people. But Redfield allowed his religious views to color his AIDS/HIV related research and was credibly accused of scientific misconduct.

I think he's smarter than Trump and I'd rather see him in a position of influence in the COVID game than Trump. But that's not a very high bar.

[Joe Guy]

This might be helpful at putting things into a better perspective, while reinforcing that Trump is a lying sack of shit and an idiot...

[Gob]