Deacon Steve, it is not true that COVID transmission occurs mostly through "large, heavy secreted droplets usually limited to a radius of about six feet of the infected person." Although public health institutions have for historical reasons been tragically reluctant to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is carried on small light particles, the evidence for airborne transmission of COVID is overwhelming.
Keeping six feet apart from infected persons is protective for a different reason, namely, that these light airborne particles are most concentrated closest to their source (see Figure 1).
Thanks, Alan, this is very helpful! While I didn’t exactly say that Covid transmission occurs mostly through heavy droplets, on rereading it did sound that way—so I rewrote the passage to clarify that the concentrations rather than the size of the droplets is the most important thing. (Aerosolized droplets are also in higher concentrations around the source.) Then on second thought I just removed Covid from points 2 and 3 and focused on flu. I also added a footnote explaining this, linking to sources (including one you sent me offline as well as the one in your comment here), and thanking you. Thanks again for your help and fact checking!
From RFK Jr yesterday, I didn’t see this coming, “Measles is a highly contagious respiratory illness with certain health risks, especially to unvaccinated individuals,” and “We must engage with communities to understand their concerns, provide culturally competent education, and make vaccines readily accessible”
This is from RFK’s Sunday Fox News op-ed. It’s a step in the right direction for him, although qualified with caveats like “The decision to vaccinate is a personal one” and claim that “By 1960—before the vaccine’s introduction—improvements in sanitation and nutrition had eliminated 98% of measles deaths” and “Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses.”
Yeah, it’s still percolating down through the news media—I saw it again in a story yesterday too! Hopefully the reality of the outbreak will lead to stronger statements and more realism about vaccines.
Not for the first time, it seems striking what an amazing (in the colloquial sense, even "miraculous") invention vaccines have been. If they didn't exist yet, and someone were describing how extremely beneficial they would be, or their extremely high ratio of benefits to costs, people would be amazed and fervently wish that we might have such blessings.
But as with so many other blessings, our society tends toward taking even these for granted. "First World problems," as they say.
My wife is not originally from the First World. Her comment on vaccine "skepticism" in America is, _Back home, there aren't pro- and anti-vaccine 'sides'. Everyone just wishes we could get them._
I appreciate your comment, Tony, though it raises more issues than I can easily address here.
Regarding the Provincetown outbreak, a physician who was there argues persuasively that vaccination still was remarkably effective at preventing infection in exposed persons: the infection rate, he estimates, was 6 times higher among unvaccinated patrons of crowded, poorly ventilated clubs where hardly anyone was masking.
As you saw, though, vaccination didn't prevent all infections. And while incompleteness of protection didn't necessarily imply that vaccine mandates were obsolete, doubling down on vaccination as the single key for members of the public to keep from getting Covid, the so-called "vax and relax" approach, was a terrible mistake. It left countless persons dead or disabled by Long Covid, it forfeited time during which additional changes to infrastructure could have protected us in the long term against airborne hazards of all kinds, and it contributed to the erosion of public trust in vaccines of all kinds. We continue to suffer the consequences. Trust is fragile, as you say; it will take transparency over time to restore it.
On a minor technical note: the much-abused concept of herd immunity implies, thankfully, that something short of 100% compliance with vaccination will deny a potential outbreak the "tinder" it would need to spread. For a measles virus with a basic reproductive number (R₀) of 18, the threshold would be 94.4%.
Thanks, Deacon Steve. Although the commenter was mistaken on some details, honestly, these were par for the course. His fundamental reflection that overselling of the Covid vaccine had undermined his own trust was worth saying, and I wasn't just being polite when I said I appreciated his comment.
Also, as I have said before, I greatly respect and appreciate your own commitment to transparency.
Deacon Steve, it is not true that COVID transmission occurs mostly through "large, heavy secreted droplets usually limited to a radius of about six feet of the infected person." Although public health institutions have for historical reasons been tragically reluctant to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is carried on small light particles, the evidence for airborne transmission of COVID is overwhelming.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9538841/
Keeping six feet apart from infected persons is protective for a different reason, namely, that these light airborne particles are most concentrated closest to their source (see Figure 1).
Thanks, Alan, this is very helpful! While I didn’t exactly say that Covid transmission occurs mostly through heavy droplets, on rereading it did sound that way—so I rewrote the passage to clarify that the concentrations rather than the size of the droplets is the most important thing. (Aerosolized droplets are also in higher concentrations around the source.) Then on second thought I just removed Covid from points 2 and 3 and focused on flu. I also added a footnote explaining this, linking to sources (including one you sent me offline as well as the one in your comment here), and thanking you. Thanks again for your help and fact checking!
From RFK Jr yesterday, I didn’t see this coming, “Measles is a highly contagious respiratory illness with certain health risks, especially to unvaccinated individuals,” and “We must engage with communities to understand their concerns, provide culturally competent education, and make vaccines readily accessible”
This is from RFK’s Sunday Fox News op-ed. It’s a step in the right direction for him, although qualified with caveats like “The decision to vaccinate is a personal one” and claim that “By 1960—before the vaccine’s introduction—improvements in sanitation and nutrition had eliminated 98% of measles deaths” and “Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/robert-f-kennedy-jr-measles-outbreak-call-action-all-us
Oh, I just saw it yesterday
Yeah, it’s still percolating down through the news media—I saw it again in a story yesterday too! Hopefully the reality of the outbreak will lead to stronger statements and more realism about vaccines.
Not for the first time, it seems striking what an amazing (in the colloquial sense, even "miraculous") invention vaccines have been. If they didn't exist yet, and someone were describing how extremely beneficial they would be, or their extremely high ratio of benefits to costs, people would be amazed and fervently wish that we might have such blessings.
But as with so many other blessings, our society tends toward taking even these for granted. "First World problems," as they say.
My wife is not originally from the First World. Her comment on vaccine "skepticism" in America is, _Back home, there aren't pro- and anti-vaccine 'sides'. Everyone just wishes we could get them._
I appreciate your comment, Tony, though it raises more issues than I can easily address here.
Regarding the Provincetown outbreak, a physician who was there argues persuasively that vaccination still was remarkably effective at preventing infection in exposed persons: the infection rate, he estimates, was 6 times higher among unvaccinated patrons of crowded, poorly ventilated clubs where hardly anyone was masking.
https://inguyun.medium.com/the-provincetown-outbreak-is-actually-good-news-if-you-are-vaccinated-93a1edd763b6
As you saw, though, vaccination didn't prevent all infections. And while incompleteness of protection didn't necessarily imply that vaccine mandates were obsolete, doubling down on vaccination as the single key for members of the public to keep from getting Covid, the so-called "vax and relax" approach, was a terrible mistake. It left countless persons dead or disabled by Long Covid, it forfeited time during which additional changes to infrastructure could have protected us in the long term against airborne hazards of all kinds, and it contributed to the erosion of public trust in vaccines of all kinds. We continue to suffer the consequences. Trust is fragile, as you say; it will take transparency over time to restore it.
On a minor technical note: the much-abused concept of herd immunity implies, thankfully, that something short of 100% compliance with vaccination will deny a potential outbreak the "tinder" it would need to spread. For a measles virus with a basic reproductive number (R₀) of 18, the threshold would be 94.4%.
Thanks so much, Alan. Once again I’m grateful for your expertise. I’m sorry the original commenter seems to have deleted his comment.
Thanks, Deacon Steve. Although the commenter was mistaken on some details, honestly, these were par for the course. His fundamental reflection that overselling of the Covid vaccine had undermined his own trust was worth saying, and I wasn't just being polite when I said I appreciated his comment.
Also, as I have said before, I greatly respect and appreciate your own commitment to transparency.