These study results might help to explain the spread of virus in the Lady of Loretto classroom (in addition to extended exposure to a symptomatic index person coupled with probable airflow recirculation):
This particular passage in the article is especially salient:
“The results show that a standard surgical and three-ply cloth masks … filter at apparent efficiencies of only 12.4% and 9.8%, respectively,” according to the University of Waterloo study’s conclusion.
The most commonly used paper and cloth masks help, in other words, but not as much as people have been led to believe. So it seems. (They’ll block most of the spray if you sneeze or cough, though.)
Maybe this also helps to explain why LA county (indoor mask mandate) and SD county (indoor mask recommendation) seven day ave. case numbers per capita have peaked in almost the same way numerically, and at the same time, after June 15. (Source: LA Times plots.)
Recent observational studies and meta-analyses of mask effectiveness have estimated that mask usage reduces the risk of respiratory virus spread by 70% to 80%.
Maybe cloth masks trap respiratory particles better than they do olive oil.
When worn by humans, cloth masks become slightly damp, which may increase their effectiveness.
Yes, and this remains to be elucidated further. The “truth” might be something in between.
But many kids in that classroom did get infected, and the reports are that they all were wearing masks. Maybe not properly, but wearing them. (At least some of the infected children almost certainly must have been wearing them properly.)
Of course, getting an infectious dose depends on the strength of the source, the duration of exposure, and the true efficiency of the masks, even when worn properly.
To be continued, I guess. I would like to see a full-up, scientifically based assessment of the study discussed in the NYP article. Your “maybes” do raise valid questions.
What’s the source of this? The little I can find (which references studies from 1919 and 1938) indicate that cloth masks might actually be less effective when wet.
Thinking more about this, the teacher was symptomatic on Wednesday, May 19, so for part of that week the kids she infected were probably infecting other kids. She reported her positive test results to the school on Sunday the 23rd.
The study said only that “interviews with parents of infected students suggested that students’ adherence to masking and distancing guidelines in line with CDC recommendations was high in class.” But those parents probably thought the teacher was also adhering to those guidelines.
I’m just saying that’s one of the differences between a mannequin with an olive oil sprayer and an actual breathing human.
That’s what I meant when I said “the reports”. They came from the parents, who presumably heard it from their kids, who may or may not have reported it to them correctly. These are children talking to their parents about behavior at school.
I’m just saying that’s one of the differences between a mannequin with an olive oil sprayer and an actual breathing human.
It’s not clear how a controlled experiment could be conducted with an actual breathing human.
I agree that this whole train of communication, from children to parents to researchers, represents an uncertainty. The entire incident has so many unknowns, I’m not sure it’ll ever be sorted out completely.
Does anyone besides me feel that the messaging over the last month in the US has basically served to terrify the vaccinated and make unvaccinated eligible adults doubt the effectiveness of the vaccines?
I do.
And the NYT article is worth a read by all fully-vaccinated people.
It’s funny that you cite her as she is quite heavily criticized by a number of epidemiologist as overly optimistic and not guided by science. There are s number of comments out there about her prediction wrt covid and how she was wrong on many of them. In the end the truth will be somewhere in the middle (though I personally have quite a lot of doubts around her comments and how unreliable they tend to be)
Dr. Gandhi was only raising a question and pointed, as well one should, to the enduring T-cell protection. The NYT article by David Leonhardt is more detailed.
Her question is still an excellent response to the CDC’s continuing remarkable counterproductive incompetence at informing the public.
The messaging over the last month in the U.S. has basically served to terrify the vaccinated and make unvaccinated eligible adults doubt the effectiveness of the vaccines
That’s reassuring to hear. I’ve been rather confused by the few quotes I’ve seen from her, but I’m not an epidemiologist.
Genuine question: how has the CDC terrified the vaccinated or made the vaccine hesitant more unwilling? I don’t think the CDC has done a terrific job of communicating, but I don’t think her question applies to CDC communication.
The White House is also doing a terrific job of confusing people w/ their latest guidance, as well.
Also, after having traveled through CO and AZ last month and seeing NO masking and NO social distancing outside of federal property, I feel pretty comfortable stating that many more people need to be more worried than they currently are…
Like this one about 2.5 months ago - “You yourself are completely protected against the delta variant, and you should go and enjoy your summer. It’s been a hard time, and people should have their summer. Delta variant, delta shmariant”
I’ve only read quotes in (lay) news articles, and, thankfully, she’s not been that casual in those… But I have found her to be oddly… upbeat, nonetheless.
I won’t speak to Dr. Gandhi’s predictions. Everybody seems to have predictions these days of some sort, and when it comes to predictions, somebody is always bound to be right and the rest wrong. It’s the “sport” of the covid era to say “I told you so”, sad to say. Monday morning quarterbacking is always so easy. And in that spirit you can freely fault Dr. Gandhi’s incorrect and maybe hasty predictions without challenge, at least from me.
On the other hand, Dr. Gandhi has written some accurate synopses about the immense impact of the immune system’s B&T cells on defeating a covid-19 virus attack (and others) in an easy-to-understand, informal manner.
T-cells in particular are important in that they directly attack all parts of a virus. And they provide long-term protection because in they’re living cells, not molecular structures. The descendants of T-cells when they reproduce retain the memory that their predecessors had about stuff in the blood stream that needs to be deleted, such as covid virus particles.
B-cells, which produce antibodies, also have memory and may be thought of as the “first responders”. But T-cells are the ultimate big guns. Lots of both are activated when the mRNA vaccines are given. First B, then T.