The 60 percent figure is people living their lives normally. Currently most people are social distancing, wearing masks and large gatherings have been cancelled. Under these circumstances 20 percent may well be herd immunity. But if Madison square garden was open and the subway was packed with people not wearing masks, its not clear that 20 percent would be enough.
This seems about right, I see large numbers of people wearing masks which should reduce the chance of getting the virus. I see low numbers of people not wearing masks. It makes sense to me that the sizable majority would experience a majority of infections.
So what exactly does the 95% protection represent? 95% protection of people who wear masks and are good about social distancing and avoiding crowds/bad indoor situations? Or 95% of people going about their lives in the manner that we all did pre-Covid?
I really don't know how this is made to be some great news if it is the former and not the latter.
People don't understand that the area under the curve will remain the same. Mask or no mask, the same percentage of people will be needed to reach herd immunity.
The only exception to this is vaccinations. They may give you immunity without being infected. (They are not without risk though.)
I don't know where you live, but I live it's somewhere between 5 and 10%, asymmetrically distributed by age and social group.
I still attend scientific conferences this year that require 100% masking indoors and proof of vaccination to attend in person.
At my work all the scientist (mainly microbiologists) are still masking indoors, not just in the lab.
I don't care a whit if other people mask or not, but I do. I don't understand what kind of "help" you have in mind, but would genuinely be interested in learning.
“ If 80% of a closed population were to don a mask, COVID-19 infection rates would statistically drop to approximately one twelfth the number of infections—compared to a live-virus population in which no one wore masks.”
That was my experience in June. Crowds were packed but nearly everyone had a mask. It makes me think the masks are more important than social distancing (at least outdoors), but I'm not gonna stop social distancing where feasible. I was very pleasantly surprised that people didn't get sick.
Unfortunately I'm quite sure it's the latter. Even in Canada, in MTL where I live, on public transit it's maybe 5-6% that is masking. For most people the pandemic is simply "over", regardless of what the data says or how overwhelmed hospitals are.
Your math assumes you are the only person using masks and have daily exposure.
It breaks down when people are in isolation, which many of us now are. You are not out daily, so a 50% reduction is a 50% reduction, and with luck you never accumulate enough to get sick.
If everyone wore masks, then every ones daily exposure would drop dramatically. You get 50% less intake, and infected people are emitting much less too. You have pretty much eliminated air born transmission, and can now focus on hands and eyes.
sure, but that fits into the extant ~5%. it just takes a friend of a friend/family member to spread through social circles, since they overlap greatly, even for the tightest ones.
as i see it, masks make sense in 2 general cases:
1) when uncertainty about transmission and lethality is high, as was the case in nov/dec 2019, until population risk is more closely bounded
2) when situational risk is measurably elevated over baseline, like having comorbidities, surgery, packed mass transit, etc.
by april 2020, we (in the US at least) had enough information that masking wasn't going to be that panacea, when taking human behavior into account (trust channels, weariness, etc.). yet, it was still weaponized by the media and politicians.
i know this because i was making these very same points back in april 2020. to be effective, a mask has to be worn at the right times (like being face-to-face with another human) and correctly (creating a tight seal around the nose and mouth using an effective filtering material). most people weren't doing either of these most of the time.
Precautions are not perfect. Just because your personal choice is to wear a mask does not mean you are 100% immune from the flocks of people that choose not to. As the numbers of infected grows so too will your chances of being infected, even if you take precautions.
As someone who worked the public for the entire pandemic, id say it was about 50-50 between people who thought covid wasnt a threat and people who thought masks werent effective
And that's the kind of innumerate thinking I don't understand. Masks aren't an either/or thing. Say masks are maybe 60% effective (there's no real consensus and good science is hard to come by). A mask-wearing vaccinated person is now 96% protected. Add that to staying outside (maybe another 75% or so?) and you get to 99%. Every bit helps, which is one of the reasons why we're reaching herd immunity.
Now, you're right, there's a cost tradeoff. If everyone is at 99% it would be pure insanity to close restaurants, say. But... masks? Leave them on, until it's dead. Again, this is the cheapest mitigation we have. Roll back every other protection first. Send people back to the office. Open up the stadiums. Start hugging again. Lift the visa restrictions. Visit the grandparents. Do all that stuff first before relaxing mask use.
UCSF's grand rounds last week discussed the observation that when there are outbreaks it appears that without masks the asymptomatic rate is 40% of those infected. With masks it appears to be 85%. Or to flip it around without masks 60% have symptoms. With masks only 15% do.
Prior to covid, it was estimated that 3% of the population were immunocompromised.
Genuinely curious - Did you wear a mask prior? Would you continue to wear a mask past the epidemic, even for the rest of your life, to protect the 3% vulnerable?
Something like 90% of people with a mask, any mask, not infected after sharing space for an hour or two with sick people. In an airplane. Pretty solid protection.
reply