@hypolite @Zettour @fractalman237@social.isurf.ca @hankg @kinetix indeed. It's a sign of weakness /not/ to wear a mask. Masks are annoying. Those who can tolerate wearing them are actually the ones demonstrating strength. How are these unmasked idiots thinking they can get some machismo cred as they show they can't handle it?
@Zettour To call the machismo factor a non-factor contradicts your comments about mask wearing being "cowardly". To say "efficacy of masks post-vax" is vague. It makes no sense to speak of efficacy w/out mention of which outcome you are referring to. Their is efficacy in avoiding hosptitalization, efficacy in avoiding death, & there is efficacy in transmission mitigation.
@Zettour Although we know Zettour called fractalman237 (who said the mask was to protect others) "cowardly", there are some non-obvious reasons to mask-up: to avoid facial recognition systems in the cities as mass surveillance becomes more rampant. The mask wearing trend is good for defeating facial rec thus good for privacy.
@Zettour You don't know what you're reading. That article doesn't say what you think it does. It covers studies on infection probability "among the vaccinated" (which means from a vaccinated person to another vaccinated person). It does not cover transmission rate from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person.
@Zettour You also misunderstand what "coward" means. It's "one who is not brave enough to fight or do something difficult/dangerous/unpleasant that they should do". So you've got two things wrong here. Mask wearing is the unpleasant action to fight the virus, which means the cowardice is on those /not/ wearing the mask. It's also your action, not the action of others.
@Zettour Influencing someone else to fight something doesn't follow from the meaning of cowardice, nor is the analogy relevant. When Alice wears a mask to protect Bob, Alice burdens herself with unpleasantries, which is not the same as coercing a child to wear protective gear before skateboarding, for example.
@Zettour Again, you don't know what you're reading. That's the rate that a vaccinated person avoids becoming infected themselves, not a measure of transmission to others. Also note that it's and "effectiveness" rate, not an "efficacy". The efficacy of the same outcome is lower.
@Zettour the J&J vaccine has an efficacy of 66.3 percent in avoiding "mild to moderate" symptoms. That means there is at least a 33.7% chance of getting infected despite the vaccine.
@Zettour Vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic when infected, which means they are less likely to know when they are carrying the virus, thus less likely to know when they can transmit it.