How do we know a pandemic's over?

[TragicMonkey]

No, I'm suggesting that if the point of protection has not gone away

Has it? The context, I remind you again, is "the pandemic is over".

To return to my initial post:

IFF (if and only if) the pandemic is "over",
AND I have received my newstyle booster (scheduled for Friday),
THEN I will reduce my masking to just the cloth one.

Do you not understand conditionals? If the pandemic is still continuing then I will not downgrade my masking.

 

[Chanakya]

No, I'm asking if after you're out of the car do you still have your seat belt on?

Assuming we're not talking of different things here, the answer has to be a Yes?

What's being suggested here is that the protective measure should remain fully employed even after the point of using it has been removed.

[speaking literally now] I think the point of it hasn't quite been removed yet, right? Lessened, sure, but not actually removed?

That is, if one's of the opinion that there's no point to this any more, then I guess one simply goes without, where one can. But to the extent that one thinks there's still some risk, while I agree with you that a lesser protection is better than zero protection, but it isn't very clear to me why one might go for that lesser protection when one might opt for greater protection without making any difference to anything else.

I take your point about generally weaning off of the thing, in very general terms, sure. But ...I don't know, that would kind of apply, in this case, only if you're implying that the actual risk has gone away and the reason one is still wearing these things is primarily psychological.

(As far as I am concerned, that isn't the case. That is, it is possible that my risk perception is wrong, and maybe I'm simply overdoing it now. And I'm happy with doing that, if indeed that's the case, for a while more. But should I come to see, now or after a few months, that the need for wearing masks has gone away, then I don't think I'll have any difficulty, psychologically, getting rid of them cold turkey. In fact I'll be super happy to.)


eta: Just to be clear, TM, I'm not suggesting, not for a minute, that you're wearing masks for some psychological reason, some phobia. But unless it is that, I'm not sure why the weaning off gradually principle, that would be very reasonable in general and in case of quitting other things, might apply here.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh really? That's too bad. Hope it didn't hit you too hard, and you're OK again?

I forgot this bit. I'm totally fine, thanks. I had what seemed like a mild cold, really a sniffle, for a few days, that's all.

The evening I got back from holiday I felt a bit rubbish but I'd had a long day - early rise, bus to the airport, two flights, sitting around in airports and so on. So I went to bed. In the morning I had a slight headache, a slightly sore throat, a slight cough and a runny nose - just runny, not stuffed up. So I did a test. Hell's teeth, positive. I phoned the friend I'd been on holiday with and she said she was just about to phone me with the same news. We obviously got it at the same time. Probably from some idiot who went to that concert without a mask.

I got up, went downstairs and made breakfast. While the kettle was boiling I casually emptied the dishwasher and put all the crockery away. Hmm. Didn't have to do that. Can't be feeling too bad then.

I never felt fatigued or lost my sense of taste or smell, or my appetite. I was still testing positive on day five but by then all I had was a ticklish cough. I missed my godson's wedding though, which was on day eight. I tested negative on day ten.

The ticklish cough continued for another week but that has completely gone away too. I've had far worse colds, often. It would be too easy to say, well, it's no big deal, I don't mind if I get that again. But there's no way to predict whether a second round will be so mild, and every infection with this increases the damage to your immune system and risk or things like heart disease, stroke and dementia. So I'm back in the masks again.

 

[Rolfe]

That is, if one's of the opinion that there's no point to this any more, then I guess one simply goes without, where one can. But to the extent that one thinks there's still some risk, while I agree with you that a lesser protection is better than zero protection, but it isn't very clear to me why one might go for that lesser protection when one might opt for greater protection without making any difference to anything else.

Thank you, that is the point I was trying to make.

I can see the argument for going for an FFP2 rather than an FFP3, because they're a lot cheaper, more comfortable and easy to use, while still offering a pretty high degree of protection.

But since cloth and surgical masks aren't significantly cheaper or more comfortable or easier to use, while being markedly less effective, why??? If there is indeed still a degree of risk.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Assuming we're not talking of different things here, the answer has to be a Yes?

I'm talking of cars and seat belts. How can you be outside a car with the seat belt still on? If it's that elastic then it can't be functioning effectively.

[speaking literally now] I think the point of it hasn't quite been removed yet, right? Lessened, sure, but not actually removed?

THAT'S THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD. Is it over, or not? If it is, then a different course of action is suggested than if it isn't. I've just been saying what I will do if it IS "over".

That is, if one's of the opinion that there's no point to this any more, then I guess one simply goes without, where one can. But to the extent that one thinks there's still some risk, while I agree with you that a lesser protection is better than zero protection, but it isn't very clear to me why one might go for that lesser protection when one might opt for greater protection without making any difference to anything else.

Because it's splitting the difference. Some people, and clearly I am among them, are cautious enough that even if the pandemic IS over, we'd prefer to gradually wind down risk mitigation measures rather than completely abandon them.

This is obviously, clearly, incandescently not the same thing as abandoning risk mitigation measures while the pandemic ISN'T over. Why two of you are talking as if those are the same situation is baffling to me.

I take your point about generally weaning off of the thing, in very general terms, sure. But ...I don't know, that would kind of apply, in this case, only if you're implying that the actual risk has gone away and the reason one is still wearing these things is primarily psychological.

(As far as I am concerned, that isn't the case. That is, it is possible that my risk perception is wrong, and maybe I'm simply overdoing it now. And I'm happy with doing that, if indeed that's the case, for a while more. But should I come to see, now or after a few months, that the need for wearing masks has gone away, then I don't think I'll have any difficulty, psychologically, getting rid of them cold turkey. In fact I'll be super happy to.)

Fine. For you. For me, I'd prefer gradually winding down measures, as stated above. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I'm not lecturing you for your choice of approach.

 

[Rolfe]

Has it? The context, I remind you again, is "the pandemic is over".

To return to my initial post:

IFF (if and only if) the pandemic is "over",
AND I have received my newstyle booster (scheduled for Friday),
THEN I will reduce my masking to just the cloth one.

Do you not understand conditionals? If the pandemic is still continuing then I will not downgrade my masking.

What I don't understand is your LOGIC.

If you feel safe, why wear any mask at all?

If you perceive that there is still some risk, why "downgrade" to a mask that's no more comfortable or convenient but offers substantially less protection?

My booster is scheduled for 11th October. Logically, since this offers better protection than an infection, and I was willing to go without a mask for a couple of weeks after the infection, I should be willing to go without a mask for a couple of weeks (at least) after the booster. Still thinking about that one.

But if I perceive any risk, I won't be compromising on mask efficiency. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm talking of cars and seat belts. How can you be outside a car with the seat belt still on? If it's that elastic then it can't be functioning effectively.

THAT'S THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD. Is it over, or not? If it is, then a different course of action is suggested than if it isn't. I've just been saying what I will do if it IS "over".

Because it's splitting the difference. Some people, and clearly I am among them, are cautious enough that even if the pandemic IS over, we'd prefer to gradually wind down risk mitigation measures rather than completely abandon them.

This is obviously, clearly, incandescently not the same thing as abandoning risk mitigation measures while the pandemic ISN'T over. Why two of you are talking as if those are the same situation is baffling to me.

Fine. For you. For me, I'd prefer gradually winding down measures, as stated above. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I'm not lecturing you for your choice of approach.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm trying to understand your logic.

Whether the actual pandemic is over or not, officially, isn't the issue. The issue is whether the virus is still circulating. If it is, then precautions make sense.

If it isn't, they don't.

What doesn't make sense is saying, in effect, well last month there was a 1 in 4 chance there was someone with the virus in the space where I am, so I wore a high quality mask, but this month the chance is down to 1 in 10 so I'll wear a mask that doesn't offer much protection.

It sounds as if you're doing what you're doing out of some psychological need. Fine. If we recognise that we can dismiss it as not following logic.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What I don't understand is your LOGIC.

Clearly.

If you feel safe, why wear any mask at all?

Because safety isn't a binary state. There are degrees of safety, it's not "YES/NO".

If you perceive that there is still some risk, why "downgrade" to a mask that's no more comfortable or convenient but offers substantially less protection?

I don't know what kind of cloth masks you have, but mine is pretty good. It's quite comfortable and convenient. I'm deeming it sufficient for risk levels slightly greater than zero, as I'd judge things to be after a pandemic is immediately "over".

My booster is scheduled for 11th October. Logically, since this offers better protection than an infection, and I was willing to go without a mask for a couple of weeks after the infection, I should be willing to go without a mask for a couple of weeks (at least) after the booster. Still thinking about that one.

You do what you think is best. You've only failed once so far in avoiding the disease so that's a pretty good track record.

But if I perceive any risk, I won't be compromising on mask efficiency. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Rolfe]

The thing is, the virus is either present in the place you are, or it isn't. We're now (perhaps) in a situation where the probability of it being present in the place where you are is less than it was. That's the reduced danger. But if it is there, it's no less likely to infect you through a substandard mask than it was last month.

 

[Chanakya]

I'm talking of cars and seat belts. How can you be outside a car with the seat belt still on? If it's that elastic then it can't be functioning effectively.



THAT'S THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD. Is it over, or not? If it is, then a different course of action is suggested than if it isn't. I've just been saying what I will do if it IS "over".




Because it's splitting the difference. Some people, and clearly I am among them, are cautious enough that even if the pandemic IS over, we'd prefer to gradually wind down risk mitigation measures rather than completely abandon them.

This is obviously, clearly, incandescently not the same thing as abandoning risk mitigation measures while the pandemic ISN'T over. Why two of you are talking as if those are the same situation is baffling to me.




Fine. For you. For me, I'd prefer gradually winding down measures, as stated above. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I'm not lecturing you for your choice of approach.

Peace, man. Absolutely, whatever you're comfortable doing. Wouldn't dream of lecturing you! I was just trying to understand how using cloth masks might make sense here, since it wasn't, and isn't, clear to me. I don't mean that, not for a minute, as an exhortatation for you to stop doing that!

---

As far as the car thing, well, clearly you were going for that literally. The analogy I was going for was --- well I guess I'd best spell it out now --- if one's doing the deed, and thinks protection is called for, well then one uses protection that's fully effective. If some protection is available that is more effective than zero protection, but still much less effective than using the regular protection, well then I don't see why one would go for the less effective protection. If one decides --- rightly or wrongly --- that one doesn't need protection, then one goes without. But if one decides on does need protection, then I simply don't see the logic of using the less effective protection.

I'd imagined that you were, half-jokingly, referring to the same analogy as mine (of doing the deed), except using a further analogy of cars rather than directly alluding to it. Jokingly, of course, because after all there's no kids here, and there's no reason why we shouldn't directly speak of sex and condoms!

But like I was saying, it's just that I wasn't getting where you were coming from, as far as that, and wanted to see what it is I'm missing. Don't mean to lecture you or anything. By all means, whatever works for you!

 

[Rolfe]

I forgot my other reason for wearing a mask. Pour encourager les autres.

I've been wearing an FFP2 in shops even when I was in "I've just had it I'm not going to get it again so soon" mode. Because I've heard people say that seeing someone else in a mask seems to give them "permission" to wear one too. They feel embarrassed if they're the only one, so they expose themselves to the risk of disease rather than feel embarrassed.

Doesn't embarrass me in the slightest, so if me wearing one allows someone who feels they should but "doesn't like" to wear one to wear it, then fine.

I have no idea if this has ever worked.

 

[Rolfe]

I was trying to think of a condom reference that was appropriate. Maybe, my wife thinks she's possibly in the early stages of the menopause so I'll downgrade to wearing condoms with holes in them?

In reality, if your wife is definitely no longer fertile, junk the things. If there is still a possibility she might conceive (and you don't want another baby), don't use one with holes in it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The thing is, the virus is either present in the place you are, or it isn't. We're now (perhaps) in a situation where the probability of it being present in the place where you are is less than it was. That's the reduced danger. But if it is there, it's no less likely to infect you through a substandard mask than it was last month.

If the virus isn't present, a cloth mask does no harm. If the virus is present, a cloth mask is superior to no mask at all. In the scenario of the pandemic being over the supposition is that the virus is not present.

I have no problem with having one step up in protection from zero protection. Never be the last to discard a safety measure is something I consider to be wise.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Peace, man. Absolutely, whatever you're comfortable doing. Wouldn't dream of lecturing you! I was just trying to understand how using cloth masks might make sense here, since it wasn't, and isn't, clear to me. I don't mean that, not for a minute, as an exhortatation for you to stop doing that!

---

As far as the car thing, well, clearly you were going for that literally. The analogy I was going for was --- well I guess I'd best spell it out now --- if one's doing the deed, and thinks protection is called for, well then one uses protection that's fully effective. If some protection is available that is more effective than zero protection, but still much less effective than using the regular protection, well then I don't see why one would go for the less effective protection. If one decides --- rightly or wrongly --- that one doesn't need protection, then one goes without. But if one decides on does need protection, then I simply don't see the logic of using the less effective protection.

I'd imagined that you were, half-jokingly, referring to the same analogy as mine (of doing the deed), except using a further analogy of cars rather than directly alluding to it. Jokingly, of course, because after all there's no kids here, and there's no reason why we shouldn't directly speak of sex and condoms!

But like I was saying, it's just that I wasn't getting where you were coming from, as far as that, and wanted to see what it is I'm missing. Don't mean to lecture you or anything. By all means, whatever works for you!

If you want to use that analogy, then herpes. Condoms won't protect against herpes, but it's still wise to use them because they protect against other things. People who already have herpes should still use condoms so they don't get other things as well.

The lesson is that risk mitigation comes in degrees, and something is better than nothing. One shouldn't think the only choices are perfect protection or absolute abandonment.

In the case of this particular pandemic a cloth mask doesn't offer the best protection, but it offers more protection than absolutely nothing.

 

[Rolfe]

Still not getting it. What advantage are you gaining in wearing a cloth mask? Why would you choose to wear one rather than one that gives higher protection, when you know the virus might still be there?

If better masks were unobtainable, or prohibitively expensive, or hideously uncomfortable, or you were allergic to their components, yes I could see it. But I can find nothing at all to put in the upside column in the situation as you describe it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Still not getting it. What advantage are you gaining in wearing a cloth mask? Why would you choose to wear one rather than one that gives higher protection, when you know the virus might still be there?

If better masks were unobtainable, or prohibitively expensive, or hideously uncomfortable, or you were allergic to their components, yes I could see it. But I can find nothing at all to put in the upside column in the situation as you describe it.

Risk comes in degrees. Risk mitigation comes in degrees. Something is better than nothing. Using these principles let's go through it very, very slowly:

1. Pre-pandemic: no masking, regular contact with public
2. Pandemic: best available masking (N95), only necessary contact with public
3. Post-pandemic:
a) Option A: no masking, regular contact with public (reverting to 1)
b) Option B: masking (cloth), some contact with public (less risk mitigation than 2, but more than 1)
c) Option C: best available masking (N95), only necessary contact with public (same as 2)

When the pandemic is "over", I think I'll follow the path of Option B. It's not a full reversion to pre-pandemic, but it's not a continuation of pandemic measures either. It's a middle path, a compromise which does not abandon all risk mitigation from overconfidence nor does it continue all the previous measures from doubt. It's the option for cautious people who hope the pandemic truly is over, but aren't 100% certain it is.

You seem to be the Option A sort. Bully for you! I admire your confidence. But I don't share it. I've avoided catching this disease so far, and I fully intend to continue that even if my approach seems reckless to the Option C people and pointless to the Option A people.

 

[Chanakya]

If you want to use that analogy, then herpes. Condoms won't protect against herpes, but it's still wise to use them because they protect against other things. People who already have herpes should still use condoms so they don't get other things as well.

The lesson is that risk mitigation comes in degrees, and something is better than nothing. One shouldn't think the only choices are perfect protection or absolute abandonment.

In the case of this particular pandemic a cloth mask doesn't offer the best protection, but it offers more protection than absolutely nothing.

Not to beat this to death, TragicMonkey, and again, please don't take this as me lecturing you! But sure, take herpes. Why would one use a cloth condom, that maybe offers more protection than no condom at all, when one might just as well wear a regular condom and get the full protection it offers?


----------


I'll try one last time to point out the part which I'm not getting, by addressing these portions of your post addressed to Rolfe:

If the virus isn't present, a cloth mask does no harm. If the virus is present, a cloth mask is superior to no mask at all...

And an N95 is superior to the cloth mask, right?

If the virus isn't present, an N95 does no harm. And if the virus is present, even if at diluted risk than before but still present, then an N95 is superior to both no mask as well as a cloth mask. So that, unless there's some actual reason to, why would you go for the cloth mask as opposed to the N95? (Generic "you", I have no issues, at all, with you personally doing that if that is what you're comfortable with!)

In the scenario of the pandemic being over the supposition is that the virus is not present.

I have no problem with having one step up in protection from zero protection. Never be the last to discard a safety measure is something I consider to be wise.

Sure, but why just go one step up in protection from zero, and use a cloth mask, when you can go the full staircase up, and wear an N95?

That is, if it's a choice of either wearing no masks and wearing a cloth mask, I'm with you, I'd wear a cloth mask every time. But if it's a choice between wearing a cloth mask and wearing an N95 mask, then it isn't clear to me why one might want to choose the cloth mask.

(In the early days of the pandemic it might have made sense, sure, because N95s were difficult to come by. But these days they're easily available and not expensive either. So I'm kind of unable to see why exactly, for what reason, you'd favor the cloth over the N95, is where I was coming from.)



eta: Like I said, don't mean to beat this to death, or to lecture to you, absolutely not! And I most certainly don't mean to suggest that you mustn't use cloth masks! Just, if I've been able to make my meaning clear, perhaps you could clarify that, if you'd like to that is.

 

[Rolfe]

There was a time, in the summer of 2020, when I was wearing a very flimsy cloth thing - it wasn't even a mask, it was a snood I had round my neck and pulled up over my face when going inside. The reason? There were regulations in place about wearing face coverings in indoor spaces, even though there was actually no virus about at the time. In addition, it was summer, small shops were operating with their main doors open, so that being inside was pretty much equivalent to being out of doors.

So then, no risk, but a legal requirement to wear a mask, I was indeed wearing the minimum.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not to beat this to death, TragicMonkey, and again, please don't take this as me lecturing you! But sure, take herpes. Why would one use a cloth condom, that maybe offers more protection than no condom at all, when one might just as well wear a regular condom and get the full protection it offers?

You're over-applying the analogy here: it's not about the material of the protection used, it's about risk mitigation having degrees. Zero is less than one, one is less than two. If you don't think two is possible that doesn't mean zero is the only other potential outcome.

And an N95 is superior to the cloth mask, right?

If the virus isn't present, an N95 does no harm. And if the virus is present, even if at diluted risk than before but still present, then an N95 is superior to both no mask as well as a cloth mask. So that, unless there's some actual reason to, why would you go for the cloth mask as opposed to the N95? (Generic "you", I have no issues, at all, with you personally doing that if that is what you're comfortable with!)


Sure, but why just go one step up in protection from zero, and use a cloth mask, when you can go the full staircase up, and wear an N95?

That is, if it's a choice of either wearing no masks and wearing a cloth mask, I'm with you, I'd wear a cloth mask every time. But if it's a choice between wearing a cloth mask and wearing an N95 mask, then it isn't clear to me why one might want to choose the cloth mask.

I refer you to my immediately prior post. Option B is the middle path between "best protection" and "no protection at all". Option B is to be pursued post pandemic, when the risk is purportedly zero or near enough zero that most people are taking no precautions at all. Option B is for the cautious, Option A is for the reckless, Option C is for the paranoid. Again, this is post pandemic.


And there are some drawbacks to the N95s. They are uncomfortable. This discomfort can be born during the pandemic because it's a much lesser problem than catching the disease. After the pandemic is over, however, when the necessity of masking at all is in question, then downgrading to a more comfortable alternative is not so unreasonable.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There was a time, in the summer of 2020, when I was wearing a very flimsy cloth thing - it wasn't even a mask, it was a snood I had round my neck and pulled up over my face when going inside. The reason? There were regulations in place about wearing face coverings in indoor spaces, even though there was actually no virus about at the time. In addition, it was summer, small shops were operating with their main doors open, so that being inside was pretty much equivalent to being out of doors.

So then, no risk, but a legal requirement to wear a mask, I was indeed wearing the minimum.

Then we are using different defintions of "cloth mask". Mine is a fitted mask meant to be used as a mask, with some filtering material between layers of cloth. It holds water when washed, like a cup. Before N95s were available I wore this every time I went into public, including two visits to emergency rooms, and did not get ill.