Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-cases-down-16-233021005.html
Maybe Covid-19 is taking a break or just fading away finally.2 -
I am going to be on a plane next week for the first time since Jan. 2020. My plan is to bring hand sanitizer and wear N95 masks covered with a cloth mask. I hope that is enough.14
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-cases-down-16-233021005.html
Maybe Covid-19 is taking a break or just fading away finally.
I hate journalists who don't understand statistics. The writer focused on sensational week over week drops and buried the longer term positive trendWHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Monday that the number of new cases had declined for a fifth consecutive week, dropping by almost half, from more than five million cases in the week of January 4.
Found a chart that shows global new cases. Yea for 2021 showing better data!
6 -
I will add that my MIL, and both my parents have had their first doses of the Moderna (ages 82, 84, 86). Little to no reaction. So at least the frail do not seem to be getting hit so hard, which is the greatest concern for me. I'll deal with whatever happens to me when it is my turn.13
-
paperpudding wrote: »Freedom is a relative concept.
I will take Australia's freedom ( almost), from Covid ahead of the freedoms lost by early imposing of regulations.
Me too 🙂7 -
missysippy930 wrote: »I would also add that just because someone tests positive after being vaxxed doesn't mean they were infected after being vaxxed. There's a small window there where they could have not fully built up antibodies yet, gotten infected, and tested positive after. I'm totally playing devil's advocate here lol, but if you twist yourself into a pretzel and squint, you could make it work
Also also, people getting vaxxed now are still living in a world where most people aren't vaxxed. That 5% of people who for whatever reason don't develop antibodies from the vaccine will be far less likely to get infected a year from now, when a majority of people are vaxxed, assuming the vaccinations at leaste somewhat limit virus replication and spread.
And if the vaccines need to be administered yearly, when many still haven’t received the first round of vaccinations, how will that affect the spread? There simply isn’t enough vaccine available, and won’t be for the immediate future. There is concern about the more virulent strain starting to spread more quickly, and a resurgence of infections.
We know the government knows everything about us. Age, profession, factors for eligibility of the vaccine. Since they are in control of distribution of the vaccine, why don’t they schedule, and contact, people in the frontline health care field, and over 65 age group. Everything seems so convoluted about getting the vaccine out to the vulnerable population. Minnesota is at 79% of promised vaccine in arms. The other 21%, unavailable supply. It’s a very low percent of the total population of Minnesota vaccinated. There’s no shortage of people queuing up that want the vaccination, it’s all about lack of supply.
There are a lot of people in the world all needing vaccinations. Patience, and following guidelines set up from the beginning are in order: face covering, social distancing, and hand washing.
They are doing that here in NM...all frontline healthcare workers and first responders have had a vaccination unless they declined.
Our 1B grouping has been a little more messy...personally, I think it's too broad given the supply issues. Non-healthcare essential frontline workers and 65+ is a whole lot of people. I'm torn in regards to priority...65+ is more vulnerable as a population, but essential frontline workers are likely to have significantly more exposure.7 -
I will add that my MIL, and both my parents have had their first doses of the Moderna (ages 82, 84, 86). Little to no reaction. So at least the frail do not seem to be getting hit so hard, which is the greatest concern for me. I'll deal with whatever happens to me when it is my turn.
Same with my mom (95) and aunt (90) - barely any reaction. I hope that they ARE responding.7 -
baconslave wrote: »I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
From what I have read it is more common of recipients under 55 to have a more robust response to vaccines. Vaccines have a substance called an "adjuvant" that is designed to alert the body that there is an invader to provoke a response. As older people have less energetic immune systems, their response is less pronounced. It just doesn't pounce as hard. The Covid vax acts the same. So I imagine that if that is the case for Modern, they used a more provocatory adjuvant. My Dad is 76, and he got severe aches and chills the night after the vaccine. And soreness at the injection site and that was all. He'll get his second tomorrow. So we shall see how he weathers that.
So the 2nd dose tends to overall provoke more severe reactions than the first across both, but according to this source, Moderna's overall side effects are worse than Pfizer's. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-why-your-second-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-will-likely-have-stronger-side-effects#Millions-of-doses,-few-problems
EDIT: Being the shameless nerd that I am, I couldn't let this go. According one study, neither use a separate adjuvant, but "BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna do not explicitly state the use of an adjuvant within their vaccines, but RNA already contains immunostimulatory properties and signals through pathogen recognition receptors.72 It remains to be seen whether the immunostimulation from RNA is strong enough to confer full protection against SARS-CoV-2. There is also a possibility that the LNP carriers they utilize confer adjuvant properties themselves." Super neat. So if this is true, than the lipsomes and mRNA formulations in the Moderna are more naturally rowdy than the ones Pfizer uses.
(This source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553041/)
This exactly they talked about on TWIV. They supposed that older immune systems slowly react over time while younger immune systems just bang it right out. They also joked that older people might simply be more used to being tired and achy and don't notice it
7 -
Just a PSA reminder that (just like with weight loss articles) just because a news or tabloid website posts an article and references a study, or even a statement by a scientific org, doesn't mean that the article is drawing the correct conclusion.
I just saw people on the tweeter loosing their crap because "eggs are bad again" because of some dumb self-reported correlation study that was inadequately reported on news sites. They are doing that with covid too, so if you don't feel like parsing the scientific language of the actual study, just keep distancing, wearing your mask(s), and looking for the darn vaccine and dont get lost in the weeds. The apocalypse has been stressful enough.
13 -
I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
Wondering this myself, too. I got my 1st dose of the Moderna vaccine this past Saturday, and I'm 44. I had pretty significant soreness at the injection site, and actually felt like how I feel when I'm fighting off a virus, but don't actually get sick. I've heard some pretty significant flu-like side effects from people my age and younger.
6 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
Wondering this myself, too. I got my 1st dose of the Moderna vaccine this past Saturday, and I'm 44. I had pretty significant soreness at the injection site, and actually felt like how I feel when I'm fighting off a virus, but don't actually get sick. I've heard some pretty significant flu-like side effects from people my age and younger.
I did find an article about the vaccine on the AARP website that briefly mentions people age 55 and under seem to have a little bit more of a reaction.
https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-2021/pain-relievers-covid-vaccine.html2 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
Wondering this myself, too. I got my 1st dose of the Moderna vaccine this past Saturday, and I'm 44. I had pretty significant soreness at the injection site, and actually felt like how I feel when I'm fighting off a virus, but don't actually get sick. I've heard some pretty significant flu-like side effects from people my age and younger.
I did find an article about the vaccine on the AARP website that briefly mentions people age 55 and under seem to have a little bit more of a reaction.
https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-2021/pain-relievers-covid-vaccine.html
Thank you! It was so interesting, because right after I got the shot I started feeling symptoms of costochondritis, which I often get when I'm starting to get sick or fighting something off. I also just felt kind of run down and achy, like I might get sick, but I think it was just my body building up the immunity to it.2 -
I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
I read that younger people has more side effects after the second dose of Moderna, too. The theory is that they have a more robust immune system providing a stronger reaction after such second dose. The theory also speculates that, since older people immune system has been reduced by age, the response to the second jab may not be that bad.
I can't remember where I read that but if I find the article I will post it.
@RennieHJ
I just read that you had a mild case of COVID in November. Hopefully you were vaccinated 3 months after that. I read, and had friends to prove it, that vaccination side effects specially the second one, is tougher for people that had been previous infected. The reason is a double kick in the immune system.
It is OK to take Tylenol for fevers and body aches. Doctors recommend to stay away from Advil or other NSAIDs, since they "may" interfere with the action of the vaccines.4 -
I don't want to insult anyone, and mean no offense, but I really don't think it's helpful to obsess over the possible reactions to the vaccine.
The absolute WORST case scenario is that you will possibly feel like crap for one day. ONE DAY. We have all been sick many times in our lives, we have all had bad colds and flus, we have all felt terrible for much longer than one day.
Is it fun? No, of course not. But this is way too important to put any weight whatsoever on how your immune system MIGHT react to the vaccine. Don't major in the minors. You will be fine, even if it sucks for a day. And you'll be doing yourself and your community a service.27 -
Australia is only just about to start giving the vaccination next week. Crazy since we were told we'd be one of the first countries to get it. Can't trust politicians as usual.1
-
Lab studies suggest Pfizer, Moderna vaccines can protect against coronavirus variant
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/health/pfizer-vaccine-south-africa-variant/index.html
..."A new report published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday suggests that Pfizer-BioNTech's Covid-19 vaccine can protect people against concerning new coronavirus variants, including one first seen in South Africa called B.1.351...."
..."Separately, a team at the National Institutes of Health and Moderna published a letter in the same journal outlining findings from an experiment they reported last month. They also reported a reduction in the antibody response to viruses genetically engineered to look like the B.1.351 variant -- but not enough of a reduction to make the vaccine work any less effectively...."3 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
Wondering this myself, too. I got my 1st dose of the Moderna vaccine this past Saturday, and I'm 44. I had pretty significant soreness at the injection site, and actually felt like how I feel when I'm fighting off a virus, but don't actually get sick. I've heard some pretty significant flu-like side effects from people my age and younger.
My husband is about your age and he got the Pfizer vaccine last week. He said he has a stronger reaction to flu vaccines than to this one. He said his arm was slightly sore and then he went off mountain biking several hours later. It was no big deal. I'll update after he has his second shot in a couple of weeks.
My sister had Moderna and said she had a sore arm and was a bit tired. Nothing terrible. She gets her second dose in the next day or so. I'll let you know how it goes.
I don't think it's obsessive to want to hear about other people's experiences. I think most of the time it's more reassuring to hear the "survival" stories of people who've gone before you. At least that's how I feel.12 -
Just to be clear, I'm not worried about the reaction to the vaccine, as I'm pretty much expecting to feel at least a little ill. I'm just someone who likes to be prepared. I generally handle illness pretty well, anyway...except for vomiting/feeling like I'm going to vomit: THAT, I don't handle well. It's definitely dissuading me from getting the 2nd dose, and hopefully it won't for others, either.
I am a bit worried for my 74-year old mother's reaction, as she is scheduled to have hers next week. So, it's good to hear that the older people aren't having as much of a reaction.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html
Pro/Con lock down results surprised me.
My guess is that despite California having stricter rules regarding lockdown that plenty of people still weren't compliant unlike In Australia and New Zealand where almost every person is. Americans tend to not like having their Freedoms take from them where as we tend to mostly be fine with it.
I think that is part of it, but also being an island and very low populations probably helps as well. My city's metropolitan population alone is more than all of New Zealand. Also we have a massive land border with the US where good cross back and forth daily. We have a "lock down" here now - but 90+% of people entering are "exempt" because they are essential workers, truck drivers etc. So it's really not much a lock down anyway. If Australia closes the airport no one can get in or out. In Canada if a Canadian show up at a land crossing they can't legally refuse them entry.
Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
10 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »Just to be clear, I'm not worried about the reaction to the vaccine, as I'm pretty much expecting to feel at least a little ill. I'm just someone who likes to be prepared. I generally handle illness pretty well, anyway...except for vomiting/feeling like I'm going to vomit: THAT, I don't handle well. It's definitely dissuading me from getting the 2nd dose, and hopefully it won't for others, either.
I am a bit worried for my 74-year old mother's reaction, as she is scheduled to have hers next week. So, it's good to hear that the older people aren't having as much of a reaction.
Oops--meant to say, NOT dissuading me from getting a 2nd dose.3 -
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/other/539323-genetic-mutation-inherited-from-neanderthals-could-help-protect
Sounds like long term immunity perhaps?1 -
I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
I read that younger people has more side effects after the second dose of Moderna, too. The theory is that they have a more robust immune system providing a stronger reaction after such second dose. The theory also speculates that, since older people immune system has been reduced by age, the response to the second jab may not be that bad.
I can't remember where I read that but if I find the article I will post it.
@RennieHJ
I just read that you had a mild case of COVID in November. Hopefully you were vaccinated 3 months after that. I read, and had friends to prove it, that vaccination side effects specially the second one, is tougher for people that had been previous infected. The reason is a double kick in the immune system.
It is OK to take Tylenol for fevers and body aches. Doctors recommend to stay away from Advil or other NSAIDs, since they "may" interfere with the action of the vaccines.
Woke up with the typical sore arm this a.m. We'll see what the day brings. I'm really tired today but it's because I was awake a lot last night; that happens to me some nights.
I was diagnosed with Covid a week before Thanksgiving so it might be just about 3 months, not sure.
Stay well everyone!!12 -
I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?
I read that younger people has more side effects after the second dose of Moderna, too. The theory is that they have a more robust immune system providing a stronger reaction after such second dose. The theory also speculates that, since older people immune system has been reduced by age, the response to the second jab may not be that bad.
I can't remember where I read that but if I find the article I will post it.
@RennieHJ
I just read that you had a mild case of COVID in November. Hopefully you were vaccinated 3 months after that. I read, and had friends to prove it, that vaccination side effects specially the second one, is tougher for people that had been previous infected. The reason is a double kick in the immune system.
It is OK to take Tylenol for fevers and body aches. Doctors recommend to stay away from Advil or other NSAIDs, since they "may" interfere with the action of the vaccines.
Woke up with the typical sore arm this a.m. We'll see what the day brings. I'm really tired today but it's because I was awake a lot last night; that happens to me some nights.
I was diagnosed with Covid a week before Thanksgiving so it might be just about 3 months, not sure.
Stay well everyone!!
Really glad your symptoms are mild. You should be fine then. 99% of the time the severe symptoms start in the first 24 hours.6 -
My 83 yo mom got her first shot Tuesday and that night felt like she was coming down with something. It's now Friday and she feels much better.15
-
paperpudding wrote: »Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.
I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.9 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.
I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.
It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.
Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.5 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.
I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.
It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.
Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.
You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?
I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.
With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.8 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.
I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.
It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.
Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.
You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?
I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.
With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.
I've driven in 48 states and crossed a lot of borders. The one state that is setup for this is California. They stop all traffic coming in and have done so for years. This includes 4 lane divided interstates.4 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.
I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.
It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.
Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.
You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?
I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.
With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.
I've driven in 48 states and crossed a lot of borders. The one state that is setup for this is California. They stop all traffic coming in and have done so for years. This includes 4 lane divided interstates.
California has 16 agricultural checkpoints at certain borders. The infrastructure and staffing are already there, including ways to efficiently move traffic through. It's not feasible for other states to try to create and staff checkpoints like that on the fly.4 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes being an island helps.
But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.
Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.
But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.
Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.
I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.
It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.
Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.
You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?
I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.
With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.
I've driven in 48 states and crossed a lot of borders. The one state that is setup for this is California. They stop all traffic coming in and have done so for years. This includes 4 lane divided interstates.
California has 16 agricultural checkpoints at certain borders. The infrastructure and staffing are already there, including ways to efficiently move traffic through. It's not feasible for other states to try to create and staff checkpoints like that on the fly.
Yes, as stated:the one state that is setup for this
one meaning that nobody else is setup for that.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions