Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital | Science | AAAS
Just how effective is mask-wearing? Here's what 3 new studies found. (advisory.com)
Just how effective is mask-wearing? Here's what 3 new studies found. (advisory.com)
Humans seem most comfortable with binary data, it either works, or it doesn't. The idea it could be partially effective is resisted.
Thanks for that first link. I had not seen any studies previously that actually showed that natural infection was superior.
I do think the point is important that we should not be encouraging people to acquire the virus naturally in order to get this protection--but for those who have confirmed cases, it is good information.
It's also highlighted in that study that natural infection PLUS vaccination is superior to either. Which is important.
That's possibly true.
But also, when presented with a solution that is only partially effective, it then requires the consideration of other factors, including tradeoffs.
In other words, is the efficacy of the mask (under real-world conditions rather than lab conditions) viable enough, that it offsets the negative factors? Additionally, are there solutions that are SIGNIFICANTLY more effective that can be employed-- like a vaccine-- that render any incremental protection from mask-wearing to be statistically insignificant?
Well, I haven't seen any actual data on negative factors of mask-wearing, beyond cases of maskne (mask acne). I know some people think they're going to pass out because of too much CO2, which is BS. And others think that children will be emotionally stunted for life by wearing a mask a couple hours a day. But neither of those have, to my knowledge, been supported by actual data.
So the balancing test of mask-wearing, i.e. benefit vs cost, is balancing something with some unknown benefit vs basically zero cost.
That said, the balancing test of a mask
mandate is different, because there is a personal liberty. It's hard to quantify the personal liberty cost of being forced to wear a mask, but I think that cost is much larger than any other "negative factors" to social, emotional, or physical well-being.
So having widespread [and free at the point of distribution] vaccine availability, IMHO, flips that cost/benefit calculation such that mask
mandates are no longer justifiable. Those who desire the protection of the vaccine can have it and don't need to wear a mask, and those who don't desire the protection of the vaccine nor to wear a mask are implicitly accepting the consequences of that decision.