Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If you saw someone wearing a seatbelt when they were stopped at a red light, would you make fun of them due to the relative safety of that situation?

There’s a causal relationship between seatbealts and utility in a crash. The fatality rate is lower because of the use of seatbelts.

Wearing a mask while vaccinated is not causal with reduced transmission or death.

I wouldn’t make fun of someone for anything like this, but if I saw the driver of the car next to me with a pillow in their lap with the intent to help during an accident, I would think that they are being silly. I would definitely think they were super silly if they were espousing the benefit of keeping pillows in laps while driving because it makes them feel comfortable, or can’t hurt, or is an easy thing to do.



I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are you claiming that masks are ineffective in general or that vaccines are so effective that further protection is pointless?


I’m claiming, and not just me, that masks are ineffective at adding additional protection for a vaccinated person who wishes to not spread covid.

Masks are quite effective at preventing the spread of COVID. I believe this is shared by public health authorities.

Masks are tool that are good for some things so it depends the particular need.

I’m not arguing either of your claims, but masks+vaccine are unnecessary. This is different from masks being effective or from vaccines requiring no further needed protections.


What evidence is there that masks provide no additional protection for vaccinated people?

Are there special types of virus particles that come from vaccinated people that pass freely through filters? Or is it that when on the face of a vaccinated person, a mask is unable to filter out viruses?


> What evidence is there that masks provide no additional protection for vaccinated people?

The question is what evidence is there that they provide additional protection.

You don’t disprove things, you prove them.

Since there’s lack of evidence of efficacy, so that affects the decision.

This is kind of why I think people are logically waking through available evidence. There’s some material on CDC’s page [0] but I’m not familiar with the field so don’t know all the specific papers and studies and what not.

As a layperson, just reading the CDC site I think it’s that a vaccinated person, almost always, does not produce vaccine particles to spread. Since masks reduce spread of particles from infected people, the principle of the mask would not apply. Since vaccinated means no particles to prevent spreading.

Of course the vaccine isn’t 100% effective, but I assume protective enough that wearing masks produces no additional population protection, or that the benefit does not outweigh the cost.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...


We know:

a) Masks reduce transmission by physically blocking viruses

b) Vaccinated people can contract COVID by breathing in viruses

c) Vaccinated people can infect others by breathing out viruses

There's no reason to believe that the mechanism in (a) doesn't work for vaccinated people any more than it wouldn't work for people in Vermont or people named Jake, even if there hasn't been a specific study on those subgroups.

Yes, vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected and to infect others. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that a mask wouldn't reduce that risk further.

Whether or not it's worth the hassle of wearing a mask is a reasonable question, but that's a risk/reward tradeoff question, not a question of whether or not a mask reduces risk, which is what your claim is.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: