Coronavirus prep

1414415417419420498

Replies

  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    I’ve not seen any statistics showing which shot people with breakthrough cases got. It seems like that would be an interesting statistic.

    If anyone has seen the breakdown, please post.


    I don't know if somebody (CDC??) is keeping track of which vaccine has the most break-thru cases, or if testing centers ask for the name of the vaccine that a person received. It would be interesting to know.

    I was reading online (Mr. Google to the rescue) that breakthrough cases may be under counted and underestimated since not all vaccinated people feeling sick or "thinking" that they got covid seek testing. Some just quarantine themselves for few days. In addition, some vaccinated people that might have been infected with the new variant could be totally un-symptomatic, but still able to spread the virus. That is why masks are still needed.

    I agree. My dh was sick last week with a bad cold; I'm guessing but we had no proof. When he called the dr. they told him not to worry about getting tested because he had Covid back in November and was vaccinated in March/April. They only asked if he was running a fever. With all the breakthrough infections going on of vaccinated people.....I didn't agree with his dr. at all. :(
    Our numbers are low but are they really, if people aren't getting tested the way they were?

    Could go ahead and get tested. My mom and several people in the same house have had a bad cold lately. She had Covid August 2020 and was vaccinated earlier this year. If not for negative tests, I would have guessed Covid again. But people still do get other respiratory infections.

    He's fine now. But it still baffles me why they didn't at least give him the option. He probably could've pushed a test for himself but he's one of those people that a) believe everything his dr. tells him and b) is lazy. :( They told him people are getting bad colds in our area so he went with that. :s But then how would they know if they're all bad colds and not Covid if they're not still pushing the tests?
    He feels justified by his drs. decision because he didn't have a fever and didn't lose his sense of taste or smell. I reminded him that back when we contracted it in November, my only symptom was fatigue and I was tested because he'd had a "cold" and got tested. I cannot remember if he had a fever then or not.

    They're getting lax with the testing. :( SMH

    And to @lokihen, I agree with you.


    But if it is Covid, which with vaccination is generally equivalent to a bad cold, then what is the point of testing to confirm that? At some point we move on from the pandemic "panic" stage of this, to the endemic stage - where yes, people are still going to get Covid, even with the vaccine, and they are going to recover without treatment in the vast majority of cases.

    I read recently that the Delta variant is as contagious as chicken pox, if that is the case then we are not going to eradicate it by testing and isolating people indefinitely. The only way through this now is to vaccinate as many as possible so that it doesn't cause mass severe illness and death. The messaging that we are somehow going to "beat" Covid by eradicating it from the population through lockdowns, testing and isolation is outdated. It isn't going to happen.

    1) So the infected person knows that he needs to quarantine and protect vulnerable people
    2) To give public health officials relevant data to understand local risk factors, possible spreader events and long term vaccine efficacy metrics.

    My point is that at a certain point as the disease becomes endemic quarantining infected people with mild illness isn’t feasible. At a certain point (I believe that point to be now in my specific area of the world) we have to shift our containment strategies away from “positive cases” to more meaningful metrics, such as hospitalizations and deaths. Mass testing of mildly ill people in a post vaccine scenario just doesn’t make sense. That is the whole point of the vaccine program, to keep people alive and out of the hospital, even after they are exposed.


    Why not? What about kids under 12 -- just let them get infected?

    Actually yes. Lockdowns and restrictions are far more detrimental to children than Covid. Look up the stats.

    The school age children I know, old enough to understand why, don't have a problem wearing a mask even if they aren't always great at complying. Barely 1% of children died from polio, but we took great lengths to protect them until the vaxx was available.

    Children seem to have a similar risk of long covid, which doesn't require severe illness to occur, as adults. Long term loss of taste and smell, measurable long term fatigue, long term brain fog/memory issues.

    And several hospitals in the southern US are reporting full pediatric ICUs. I think some parents would rather their kids deal with masks for another semester or two until they can be vaccinated. I agree that schools should be in person, but I also think everything we can realistically do to mitigate their risk at least until they have the opportunity to get vaxxed isn't too much to ask.

    Where did you get your data on “long Covid” in children? The data I have seen indicates it is rare so I’m curious as to your source for that.
  • Redordeadhead
    Redordeadhead Posts: 1,188 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    My wife and daughter had to fly to Ohio last week. Daughter wasn't feeling well for like two days when she got back. She's on the mend now, but it sounded like a break through infection (she's vaxxed, as we all are, by the Pfizer vaccine). Wouldn't have went but my wife's only sister is ready to pass and she wanted to see her while she still could. They ate inside while in Cincinnati a few times and took some Ubers. I would imagine that's how she was exposed. Or on the plane. Who knows. They had four flights and one had a guy coughing behind them the entire flight.

    Very, very glad they are both vaccinated. If she has it, it's been very, very mild (no temp, oxygen readings great -- heck, hers are better than mine!).

    Was your daughter tested and found positive for COVID? If not, it is possible that it is not a break through COVID infection but one of the many other illnesses we've had around prior to COVID's existence.

    No, she wasn't. She doesn't work outside the home and didn't need to go anywhere. Plus, no fever or oxygen level drops. We didn't feel it was necessary (and neither my wife or I go outside the home much at all). She's feeling better now. Could it have been jetlag or seasonal allergies? Sure, it's possible.

    Hopefully it was something else then, not covid. Glad to hear in any case she's feeling much better.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    I’ve not seen any statistics showing which shot people with breakthrough cases got. It seems like that would be an interesting statistic.

    If anyone has seen the breakdown, please post.


    I don't know if somebody (CDC??) is keeping track of which vaccine has the most break-thru cases, or if testing centers ask for the name of the vaccine that a person received. It would be interesting to know.

    I was reading online (Mr. Google to the rescue) that breakthrough cases may be under counted and underestimated since not all vaccinated people feeling sick or "thinking" that they got covid seek testing. Some just quarantine themselves for few days. In addition, some vaccinated people that might have been infected with the new variant could be totally un-symptomatic, but still able to spread the virus. That is why masks are still needed.

    I agree. My dh was sick last week with a bad cold; I'm guessing but we had no proof. When he called the dr. they told him not to worry about getting tested because he had Covid back in November and was vaccinated in March/April. They only asked if he was running a fever. With all the breakthrough infections going on of vaccinated people.....I didn't agree with his dr. at all. :(
    Our numbers are low but are they really, if people aren't getting tested the way they were?

    Could go ahead and get tested. My mom and several people in the same house have had a bad cold lately. She had Covid August 2020 and was vaccinated earlier this year. If not for negative tests, I would have guessed Covid again. But people still do get other respiratory infections.

    He's fine now. But it still baffles me why they didn't at least give him the option. He probably could've pushed a test for himself but he's one of those people that a) believe everything his dr. tells him and b) is lazy. :( They told him people are getting bad colds in our area so he went with that. :s But then how would they know if they're all bad colds and not Covid if they're not still pushing the tests?
    He feels justified by his drs. decision because he didn't have a fever and didn't lose his sense of taste or smell. I reminded him that back when we contracted it in November, my only symptom was fatigue and I was tested because he'd had a "cold" and got tested. I cannot remember if he had a fever then or not.

    They're getting lax with the testing. :( SMH

    And to @lokihen, I agree with you.


    But if it is Covid, which with vaccination is generally equivalent to a bad cold, then what is the point of testing to confirm that? At some point we move on from the pandemic "panic" stage of this, to the endemic stage - where yes, people are still going to get Covid, even with the vaccine, and they are going to recover without treatment in the vast majority of cases.

    I read recently that the Delta variant is as contagious as chicken pox, if that is the case then we are not going to eradicate it by testing and isolating people indefinitely. The only way through this now is to vaccinate as many as possible so that it doesn't cause mass severe illness and death. The messaging that we are somehow going to "beat" Covid by eradicating it from the population through lockdowns, testing and isolation is outdated. It isn't going to happen.

    1) So the infected person knows that he needs to quarantine and protect vulnerable people
    2) To give public health officials relevant data to understand local risk factors, possible spreader events and long term vaccine efficacy metrics.

    My point is that at a certain point as the disease becomes endemic quarantining infected people with mild illness isn’t feasible. At a certain point (I believe that point to be now in my specific area of the world) we have to shift our containment strategies away from “positive cases” to more meaningful metrics, such as hospitalizations and deaths. Mass testing of mildly ill people in a post vaccine scenario just doesn’t make sense. That is the whole point of the vaccine program, to keep people alive and out of the hospital, even after they are exposed.


    Why not? What about kids under 12 -- just let them get infected?

    Actually yes. Lockdowns and restrictions are far more detrimental to children than Covid. Look up the stats.

    This 12th years old doesn't agree with your idea and she seems to have more empathy and common sense that some adults.

    Florida tween takes on school board to call for mask mandate

    Lila Hartley is heading into seventh grade next week. She's excited about history class and trying to figure out how to make more friends when she gets back to in-person school.
    But first, the 12-year-old feels she has to stand up for her little brother and all children too young to be vaccinated against coronavirus.
    "It's definitely a big deal to me," she said. "So many people are dying and getting sick, and masks just keep people safe. My brother isn't old enough to get the vaccine. So he's, like, vulnerable."


    https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/us/florida-school-mask-mandate-duval-teen/index.html

    Idk where this line of discussion even came from tbh - is anyone telling people that they can’t wear a mask? My comments were in regard to testing for mild illnesses and quarantine/lockdowns - if people feel safer wearing a mask I have no issues with that.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!

    I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.

    I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    edited August 2021
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!

    I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.

    I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.

    You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.

    I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were :) But you see what I'm saying?

    No, I am not assuming that.

    Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.

    If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.

    ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.


    I didnt draw any conclusions - I just presented the raw data.

    I couldnt find specific vaccination rates for NSW as a whole- but Australia, 33% have had at least one dose.

    I assume that percentage is higher in eastern states (NSW being one) since Covid has been more of an issue there than in central and western Australia

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/03/vaccination-rates-lowest-in-sydney-suburbs-with-most-covid-cases
    part way down page is data showing vaccination rates by specific area and which state the area is in
    The NSW areas are at the top of the list - most sitting at between 1/3 and 1/2 of people having had at least one dose.
    You will notice it says people15+ : at present only 16 and over can have vaccine here.

    You will also notice covid case are lowest in those areas with highest vaccination rates - although I concede there are other factors at play - northern Sydney is very affluent, for example, and general health status probably rises with that


    That was my point. The raw data as originally presented is insufficient to know anything. People (like those who clicked disagree on my earlier post) look at raw data like that and think it says it's much more dangerous to be unvaccinated (which I happen to agree with, but I do so based on more complete data sets that have vaccination rates), when it doesn't. Not without additional information.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!


    Did they? Or were there just so many more vaccinated people in the population that the raw data made it look like that?
  • ReenieHJ
    ReenieHJ Posts: 9,724 Member
    @Fuzzipeg I'm so sorry. :( It's a deeply sad situation for your family member. :(
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Xikaiden wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!

    I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.

    I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.

    You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.

    I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were :) But you see what I'm saying?

    No, I am not assuming that.

    Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.

    If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.

    ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.

    Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.

    Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....

    The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.

    Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.

  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,098 Member
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.

    For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making. :)
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.

    For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making. :)

    I would think it's more helpful to use the actual raw numbers in the example for people who don't understand why you need to know the vaccination rate to usefully compare the raw numbers. Why throw even more arithmetic at people for whom basic statistics is not intuitively obvious? If I had posted what you suggest, I would have expected the response to be, "Where the heck did you get 36 from? You're changing the numbers. It was just four vaccinated people in the ICU."
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.

    They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.

    I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?