Coronavirus prep

1335336338340341498

Replies

  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was expecting to wait awhile before I was even eligible for the vaccine, feeling kind of okay with that because I would rather see how side effects play out. But I received a note in the mail today, because I help care for my BIL I'm eligible for the vaccine now and need to call our local hospital by the 20th to set up an appt.
    The 1st shot doesn't scare me but the 2nd one does, only because I've heard people get worse reactions with that one.
    I'm 67, pretty healthy as far as it all goes, had Covid(Blessedly mild) back around Thanksgiving but just not knowing how it'll affect me leaves me apprehensive.
    Any encouraging words to offer?
    Thank you!!

    Reenie, have you gotten the shingles vaccine? I have to say, after listening to conversations about vaccines for the last month or two, I am looking forward to the covid vaccines and kind of scared of the shingles one! :lol:

    In my work, I have given hundreds of shingles vaccines - no more reactions than any other vaccine.

    As with all vaccines some people get sore arm and /or redness and swelling.
    But doesn't seem any more so than any other vaccine.

    It is a live vaccine though so some people cannot have it.

    Who should not have the shingles vaccine? Curious
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    Thanks!
  • ReenieHJ
    ReenieHJ Posts: 9,724 Member
    edited January 2021
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was expecting to wait awhile before I was even eligible for the vaccine, feeling kind of okay with that because I would rather see how side effects play out. But I received a note in the mail today, because I help care for my BIL I'm eligible for the vaccine now and need to call our local hospital by the 20th to set up an appt.
    The 1st shot doesn't scare me but the 2nd one does, only because I've heard people get worse reactions with that one.
    I'm 67, pretty healthy as far as it all goes, had Covid(Blessedly mild) back around Thanksgiving but just not knowing how it'll affect me leaves me apprehensive.
    Any encouraging words to offer?
    Thank you!!

    Reenie, have you gotten the shingles vaccine? I have to say, after listening to conversations about vaccines for the last month or two, I am looking forward to the covid vaccines and kind of scared of the shingles one! :lol:

    Last winter I had 4 shots, the flu, shingles and pneumonia; one required a 2nd shot but can't remember which one it was. :/ I felt kind of icky the next day, nothing debilitating, just wanted to sleep it off.. but unfortunately having had so many shots I honestly couldn't tell you which 1 it was. I've never had a reaction more than a sore arm from any injection before.

    I know my dad had Shingles and it wasn't fun so even if the injection has a side affect, it's worth it.

    I've now heard if you've had Covid then the Covid vaccine is worst with the 1st one, if you haven't had Covid the 2nd injection will give you a bigger effect. Everything is so darn confusing about all of it. :( I visit another forum where Covid vaccine is a big topic and someone reported knowing 7 people that have been vaccinated so far. Five with sore arms, 1had flu like symptoms for a weekend but the 7th was hospitalized with breathing issues but is a person with 22 yrs. under his belt of smoker's lungs.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,096 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @kshama2001 and @cwolfman13 I respect both your replies pointing out how the surgeon general is part of an administration and is therefore not apolitical. But, the other part of the original comment, which I also addressed, was how the 15 days to slow the spread did not "come from Fauci". As I quoted above, at the same approximate point in time, Fauci was stating "several weeks". In the overcall experience we have had, the 15 days of the surgeon general vs the several weeks stated by Fauci were equally wrong.

    One of the big issues here is that we weren't even able to see what two weeks or several weeks of an actual lockdown would do. Everything was left to individual states. There were states who never shut anything down at all...others put in minimal restrictions...others shut down, but very quickly opened everything back up to almost normal. That's like having a special area of the swimming pool that it's ok to pee in. The only way anything like two weeks or several weeks would have worked is if everyone was on the same page and doing the same thing. This is pretty evident just by observing other countries that have effectively controlled the virus.

    Also, if you remember back to March and the two week plan or the CDC and Fauci saying it would be longer...part of all of that was slow, phased opening up...which should have also been an indication to people that restrictions would go on considerably longer. Honestly, if anyone legitimately thought it would be a couple of weeks or several weeks and then we'd just be back to pre COVID life, I would have to question if they were actually paying attention to what was happening in the world around them.

    There wasn't even a phased opening in many states...and even more states that were opening in phases, but not really following any kind of guideline as to what should or would be open in any given phase of re-opening.

    There is a reason that the USA leads the world in COVID positivity rates...there is a reason other countries have been able to control the virus...

    While all valid, my original post was simply in response to someone (don't recall who) stating that they never heard any two weeks statement, so I showed the surgeon general and the 15 days to slow the spread announced last March to show that there was something (not whether it was good or bad).

    Then people said, well that statement was not from a scientist like Fauci. So I showed Fauci said fairly similar around the same time. My posts all have roots in the single original comment about never hearing of a "two week" plan.

    It was 2 weeks to "slow the spread" not END the spread. We were supposed to be flattening the curve so resources would not be overwhelmed by a sudden, massive spike of infections. It was supposed to give us time to prepare for the coming onslaught. Although the time seemed to be squandered... Did anyone really say or even think it would be over in 2 weeks?

    The only person telling us it would magically completely disappear soon was the president. I can see how people who believed his statements would be disappointed when the pandemic kept going...

    I'm not sure you can say that Fauci's comment was "equally wrong" since he said it would be several weeks with restrictions in place to get things under control. Since we never actually had anything consistent and coordinated in place, we can't actually know if he would have been right or wrong. We never did the things he told us we needed to do.

    And if you back and read the Fauci quotes in this thread, making sure to read all the text around what was bolded, he was actually saying "at least several weeks" and "several weeks or longer."

    True, but if I were have a repair done and the contractor stated servers weeks or longer back mid-March, I would expect it to be complete by some point in May.
  • ReenieHJ
    ReenieHJ Posts: 9,724 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @kshama2001 and @cwolfman13 I respect both your replies pointing out how the surgeon general is part of an administration and is therefore not apolitical. But, the other part of the original comment, which I also addressed, was how the 15 days to slow the spread did not "come from Fauci". As I quoted above, at the same approximate point in time, Fauci was stating "several weeks". In the overcall experience we have had, the 15 days of the surgeon general vs the several weeks stated by Fauci were equally wrong.

    One of the big issues here is that we weren't even able to see what two weeks or several weeks of an actual lockdown would do. Everything was left to individual states. There were states who never shut anything down at all...others put in minimal restrictions...others shut down, but very quickly opened everything back up to almost normal. That's like having a special area of the swimming pool that it's ok to pee in. The only way anything like two weeks or several weeks would have worked is if everyone was on the same page and doing the same thing. This is pretty evident just by observing other countries that have effectively controlled the virus.

    Also, if you remember back to March and the two week plan or the CDC and Fauci saying it would be longer...part of all of that was slow, phased opening up...which should have also been an indication to people that restrictions would go on considerably longer. Honestly, if anyone legitimately thought it would be a couple of weeks or several weeks and then we'd just be back to pre COVID life, I would have to question if they were actually paying attention to what was happening in the world around them.

    There wasn't even a phased opening in many states...and even more states that were opening in phases, but not really following any kind of guideline as to what should or would be open in any given phase of re-opening.

    There is a reason that the USA leads the world in COVID positivity rates...there is a reason other countries have been able to control the virus...

    While all valid, my original post was simply in response to someone (don't recall who) stating that they never heard any two weeks statement, so I showed the surgeon general and the 15 days to slow the spread announced last March to show that there was something (not whether it was good or bad).

    Then people said, well that statement was not from a scientist like Fauci. So I showed Fauci said fairly similar around the same time. My posts all have roots in the single original comment about never hearing of a "two week" plan.

    It was 2 weeks to "slow the spread" not END the spread. We were supposed to be flattening the curve so resources would not be overwhelmed by a sudden, massive spike of infections. It was supposed to give us time to prepare for the coming onslaught. Although the time seemed to be squandered... Did anyone really say or even think it would be over in 2 weeks?

    The only person telling us it would magically completely disappear soon was the president. I can see how people who believed his statements would be disappointed when the pandemic kept going...

    I'm not sure you can say that Fauci's comment was "equally wrong" since he said it would be several weeks with restrictions in place to get things under control. Since we never actually had anything consistent and coordinated in place, we can't actually know if he would have been right or wrong. We never did the things he told us we needed to do.

    And if you back and read the Fauci quotes in this thread, making sure to read all the text around what was bolded, he was actually saying "at least several weeks" and "several weeks or longer."

    True, but if I were have a repair done and the contractor stated servers weeks or longer back mid-March, I would expect it to be complete by some point in May.

    Unfortunately, 'in these times', yes those dreaded words again, it doesn't happen like it used to. We just had a bathroom reno, looking at replacing some windows and possibly redoing our kitchen, so I've heard this estimate of time several times now.
    I'm sure it's much more so with anything that dares to be promised about Covid. :(
  • missysippy930
    missysippy930 Posts: 2,577 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was expecting to wait awhile before I was even eligible for the vaccine, feeling kind of okay with that because I would rather see how side effects play out. But I received a note in the mail today, because I help care for my BIL I'm eligible for the vaccine now and need to call our local hospital by the 20th to set up an appt.
    The 1st shot doesn't scare me but the 2nd one does, only because I've heard people get worse reactions with that one.
    I'm 67, pretty healthy as far as it all goes, had Covid(Blessedly mild) back around Thanksgiving but just not knowing how it'll affect me leaves me apprehensive.
    Any encouraging words to offer?
    Thank you!!

    Reenie, have you gotten the shingles vaccine? I have to say, after listening to conversations about vaccines for the last month or two, I am looking forward to the covid vaccines and kind of scared of the shingles one! :lol:

    Last winter I had 4 shots, the flu, shingles and pneumonia; one required a 2nd shot but can't remember which one it was. :/ I felt kind of icky the next day, nothing debilitating, just wanted to sleep it off.. but unfortunately having had so many shots I honestly couldn't tell you which 1 it was. I've never had a reaction more than a sore arm from any injection before.

    I know my dad had Shingles and it wasn't fun so even if the injection has a side affect, it's worth it.

    I've now heard if you've had Covid then the Covid vaccine is worst with the 1st one, if you haven't had Covid the 2nd injection will give you a bigger effect. Everything is so darn confusing about all of it. :( I visit another forum where Covid vaccine is a big topic and someone reported knowing 7 people that have been vaccinated so far. Five with sore arms, 1had flu like symptoms for a weekend but the 7th was hospitalized with breathing issues but is a person with 22 yrs. under his belt of smoker's lungs.

    Shingles requires a second shot. A coworker had a sever reaction to the shingles vaccine and was hospitalized. My husband has had both shingles shots with no reaction. I’m really torn about the shingles vaccine.
  • lkpducky
    lkpducky Posts: 17,568 Member
    edited January 2021
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was expecting to wait awhile before I was even eligible for the vaccine, feeling kind of okay with that because I would rather see how side effects play out. But I received a note in the mail today, because I help care for my BIL I'm eligible for the vaccine now and need to call our local hospital by the 20th to set up an appt.
    The 1st shot doesn't scare me but the 2nd one does, only because I've heard people get worse reactions with that one.
    I'm 67, pretty healthy as far as it all goes, had Covid(Blessedly mild) back around Thanksgiving but just not knowing how it'll affect me leaves me apprehensive.
    Any encouraging words to offer?
    Thank you!!

    Reenie, have you gotten the shingles vaccine? I have to say, after listening to conversations about vaccines for the last month or two, I am looking forward to the covid vaccines and kind of scared of the shingles one! :lol:

    In my work, I have given hundreds of shingles vaccines - no more reactions than any other vaccine.

    As with all vaccines some people get sore arm and /or redness and swelling.
    But doesn't seem any more so than any other vaccine.

    It is a live vaccine though so some people cannot have it.

    Who should not have the shingles vaccine? Curious

    It is a live vaccine -so same as any live vaccines (eg MMR) people with suppressed immunity should not have it- ie those on immunosuppressant meds such as chemotherapy,organ transplant reciprients, people on dialysis, people with HIV, those on some heavy duty meds for other conditions eg methotrexate.

    also pregnant women - but since Zostavax only approved for people over 50, this isnt usually an issue.

    Actually, Zostavax just got discontinued in the US (don't know about elsewhere) - Shingrix is the one being given.
    https://www.singlecare.com/blog/shingrix-vs-zostavax/
    https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/vaccination.html
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,261 Member
    lkpducky wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was expecting to wait awhile before I was even eligible for the vaccine, feeling kind of okay with that because I would rather see how side effects play out. But I received a note in the mail today, because I help care for my BIL I'm eligible for the vaccine now and need to call our local hospital by the 20th to set up an appt.
    The 1st shot doesn't scare me but the 2nd one does, only because I've heard people get worse reactions with that one.
    I'm 67, pretty healthy as far as it all goes, had Covid(Blessedly mild) back around Thanksgiving but just not knowing how it'll affect me leaves me apprehensive.
    Any encouraging words to offer?
    Thank you!!

    Reenie, have you gotten the shingles vaccine? I have to say, after listening to conversations about vaccines for the last month or two, I am looking forward to the covid vaccines and kind of scared of the shingles one! :lol:

    In my work, I have given hundreds of shingles vaccines - no more reactions than any other vaccine.

    As with all vaccines some people get sore arm and /or redness and swelling.
    But doesn't seem any more so than any other vaccine.

    It is a live vaccine though so some people cannot have it.

    Who should not have the shingles vaccine? Curious

    It is a live vaccine -so same as any live vaccines (eg MMR) people with suppressed immunity should not have it- ie those on immunosuppressant meds such as chemotherapy,organ transplant reciprients, people on dialysis, people with HIV, those on some heavy duty meds for other conditions eg methotrexate.

    also pregnant women - but since Zostavax only approved for people over 50, this isnt usually an issue.

    Actually, Zostavax just got discontinued in the US (don't know about elsewhere) - Shingrix is the one being given.
    https://www.singlecare.com/blog/shingrix-vs-zostavax/
    https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/vaccination.html


    I am posting from Australia -Zostavax is the vaccine given here, we have never had Shingrix in Australia.

    Zostavax is a live vaccine and a single dose.

    However if Shingrix is also a live vaccine (and it almost certainly is) then same restrictions on immuno compromised people and pregnant women would apply.

    Certainly (re previous post) a person on Humira and methotrexate would be contraindicated and not recieve the vaccine.

  • mockchoc
    mockchoc Posts: 6,573 Member
    papperpudding, could you tell me if someone with anaphylaxis to Bactrim would be fine to take the vaccine? I'm assuming it's OK. It just worries me a bit and not asked the doctor yet.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,261 Member
    mockchoc wrote: »
    papperpudding, could you tell me if someone with anaphylaxis to Bactrim would be fine to take the vaccine? I'm assuming it's OK. It just worries me a bit and not asked the doctor yet.

    Which vaccine?

    sorry, not meant to be silly question, but topic has wandered on to shingles vaccine too.

    Zostavax - I can see no reason why not - although, as with all vaccines you have not had before, you should wait 15 minutes afterwards in case of allergic reaction.
    Following this rule would be even more important for anyone with anaphylactic history to anything

    Covid vaccine - maybe not.
    I know people with anaphylactic history to anything are now contraindicated in UK.
    But whether we are going to use same vaccine in Australia or be as cautious about it - I dont know

    (as of course you know, but for benifit of other readers - Australian vaccination program will start in late Febuary)

  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    In my state, vaccinations continue to go mostly smoothly, except we just can’t get enough vaccine. Feds have just now told us they won’t supply vaccine for second shot.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,102 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    With respect to estimates, contractors' or public health authorities':

    I had a job that included lots of project management, for somewhat novel products. Completion estimates were very difficult, but everyone wants one, even right up front, when there's very little info about the nature of the work to be done, even.

    It's absolutely 100% human nature, near universal, to give an estimate that won't p*ss off those asking. You can't *not* give an estimate, you don't have the info needed to give a real estimate, so you do what keeps people off your back.

    Later in career, many of us find out that this is just delaying the slapback, and the results can be worse later, when people think you lied to get the job or something. So, if you can, and not be shot on the spot, up front you make an extremely, extremely long estimate, one you hope to be able to beat. (Humans being optimistic and overconfident, even these estimates sometimes turn out to be too short, but less likely to be of a whole different magnitude, so even if the audience is mad, they may not think you're a scurrilous, intentional liar.) If you do beat the ridiculously long estimate, then people are happy. (Mostly, they forget, and aren't happy regardless. 🤷‍♀️)

    So: IME, estimates made by humans tend to be optimistic, shorter than realistic. If you make the estimate, people will probably be angry at you sooner or later. Angry sooner tends to be less total anger, but it's hard not to do what feels good in the moment, and puts the anger off until the future, when it's worse.

    ETA: There's also a tendency for those receiving an estimate to remember any part of what you said that was closer to what they wanted to hear up front. They will then use that partial (sometimes even false) memory to whack you over the head later. Do I sound cynical? Yup.

    It's not just your experience - studies show people are terrible at estimating how long tasks will take.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacy

    At my last job, over 12 years, there were only three of us pessimistic enough to give accurate time estimates. The owner of the company didn't want to hear these, which pretty much gave the naturally overly optimistic people permission to be wrong with their estimates.

    Absolutely. And some things are more difficult to estimate, especially things that depend on human behavior - like novel-virus pandemics, say.

    Part of my point - maybe the more meaningful part, in context - is that the audience demands an estimate (even when there's ludicrously inadequate info to base one on), reacts angrily to more accurate (long) estimates because they want *quick*, and tends to remember any estimate with a twist favorable to their preconceptions. As the estimator, one can't win, so many will give a "happiness report" estimate just to defer the pain. (It's usually not IMO the best plan, but . . . .).

    Some of these tendencies are in play with the pandemic-related estimates.