Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »I'm listening to an interview with Dr Ashish Jha and he is saying that if you get past sensationalized media reports and "leaks", it is a tiny fraction of vaxxed people getting sick. And the data about vaxxed people being able to spread it suggests that while they CAN spread it, they are much less likely to. There are several different variables that go into being "infectious", not just how many virus particles are in your nose at any given time. He said his interpretation of the current data is more like a vaxxed person might infect one other person if they happen to catch them at the wrong time. He's concerned that fear mongering headlines are over dramatizing a slight weakness that might rarely come into play. Obviously that's just one read of the situation, but I thought a more positive view of what the new data might mean could be helpful for some of us, myself included, who could use that balance lol.
I have read these reports, too. I have seen a range of 1% of current infections being vaxxed people up to 17%, depending on the locality. This leaves me still trying to understand how 6 vaxxed young women (DD+friends) went to an outdoor concert and spent the next day together, and the 3 vaxxed in Feb got sick 2 days later (tested positive) while the 3 vaxxed in April did not get sick (tested negative). Sure, there are always data outliers. Maybe that is all that is going on here. Nonetheless, it seems like a good time to keep collecting data to better understand what is going on than to cease testing or to cease collecting data.
I wonder if the unvaxxed ones had it prior. I know among my daughter's and son's friends, most of the ones that lack caution have also already had pretty significant cases of Covid-19. My son was sick for nearly two weeks with it and everyone at his work got it at the same time (a bunch of young solar sales people in SoCal -- none of them were wearing masks inside their workplace and regularly having in person meetings). Same with my daughter's friends. A large group of them gathered in Austin during the pandemic (my daughter didn't go) and all got it. Every one of them that went. So, it would not surprise me if my daughter got more mildly sick, even with the vaccine, then someone that was sick in bed for weeks with actual Covid-19, by being exposed presently.
I believe the same young people that have been vaxxed have also mostly been cautious the entire time. But yeah, I'd love to know more data on this.
All were vaxxed-- 3 in Feb, 3 in April. I have no insight into who had which vaccines or may have had covid previously. I'm sure DD knows.
Ahh, sorry, read that wrong. Yeah, that would be concerning. I just heard today that the US won't get booster shots until the rest of the world is at a higher rate of vaccination, which seems to be a good overall strategy, but not comforting.5 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation 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. 
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.1 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman 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.2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation 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. 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.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman 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.
Glad all is well for your daughter. I asked because you referred to her illness as "a break through infection". Myself, I am concerned about us all labeling an illness as a "break through" unless we know of specific exposure or a positive test. As for "jetlag", "allergies", how about the common cold? There is lots of anxiety already about whether or not we are protected by the vaccines, and therefore I hate to add to it with speculative cases.12 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman 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.
Glad all is well for your daughter. I asked because you referred to her illness as "a break through infection". Myself, I am concerned about us all labeling an illness as a "break through" unless we know of specific exposure or a positive test. As for "jetlag", "allergies", how about the common cold? There is lots of anxiety already about whether or not we are protected by the vaccines, and therefore I hate to add to it with speculative cases.
To be honest, it's a heck of a lot more transmissible then the cold ever was. There have been way far fewer cases of the common cold since Covid-19 hit. She also didn't have a lot of cold symptoms (runny nose, sneezing, congestion that would come out). Said her head felt like concrete. She's not one for the news, so that concerned me. It's a common thing that people with Covid-19 have said. Dry cough as well.
And it wasn't meant to worry anyone. To the contrary, I think that the vaccine did exactly its job. Which is keep her from getting much sicker. There was no promise the vaccine would prevent Covid-19. Just lessen your chances of getting it and, if you do get it, minimize symptoms.7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner 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.4 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner 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? 12 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner 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.
Reading local news from Provincetown the area of the outbreak is apparently a notorious hookup scene, and also very liberal. So it may be that a) most people were vaccinated, which is going to mean that more infections occur in vaccinated people, plus b) everyone was swapping spit and large numbers of germs, not just a passing air conditioner, so it was more likely to overwhelm vaccine resistance.
Think about it, in a place with 98% vaccination, if half your cases are in vaccinated people, that means the vaccine is working, because it should be 98% if it wasn’t working. Not saying Ptown had this high a rate - it’s not really possible to know with the population being mainly tourists - but it could have been pretty high.11 -
siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner 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.2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner 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.....
6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation 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. 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.
They discussed it on TWIV and cited a survey paper I looked at but to be honest I've looked at so many studies I don't remember where. They estimated about 10% of children with symptoms have lingering symptoms for weeks, and that matched what they were seeing anecdotally. I see just yesterday a new study suggests it's 4% and also says it matches what doctors are seeing anecdotally. If the data is being surveyed from different countries it could come down to regional differences in how they keep track or what they include maybe?
The data about long covid isn't conclusive about anything because they don't understand what it is yet or what qualifies. Most studies haven't been out long enough for thorough peer review. I guess we'll find out which way Delta and other new variants are reflected in future surveys and how they all hold up to review.8 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner 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.
I think I read that there were a lot of tourists there. So if you want to get technical, you have to consider the possibility that the outbreak included a bunch of unvaxxed tourists who promptly left and are not around to be counted. If 74% of the residents who tested positive were vaxxed, that's not necessarily 74% of the outbreak.
It also doesn't show that a vaccinated person is more likely to get covid than unvaxxed. For the simple percentages reported to show that, you would need a cohort with an equal number of vaxxed and unvaxxed people, and more vaxxed people testing positive. Here you have a cohort with far more vaxxed people. To determine statistically how likely each vaxxed or unvaxxed person was to test positive, you would need to know far more variables than just the entire states vaxx rate and the percent of people in this town who were vaxxed and tested positive.
It's an alarming story regardless. But way over dramatized because percentages and statistical risk are tricky. Hopefully it's a weird one off with a unique situation or population.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding 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.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding 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.
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.1 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner 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?!
Did they? Or were there just so many more vaccinated people in the population that the raw data made it look like that?
3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation 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. 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.
This 12-year-old apparently understands that wearing a mask herself is not nearly as strong protection against her bringing the virus home to her little brother as her wearing a mask and all the other kids and staff in her school wearing masks as well.10 -
Antiopelle wrote: »In Belgium, we have high vax rates (I'll post them here below for reference).
Still, my friend's mother passed away Saturday from Covid, she was in a care home for several years and had severe underlying conditions but had tested positive for the delta variant just last week. Every patient on the ward was fully vaccinated since February, the staff had a 93% vaccination rate. The only thing they changed this month was allowing more visitors. Four other patients on the ward have also passed quiet soon after testing positive unfortunately. They were are all very elderly with severe comorbidities.
The Delta variant changes the warfare against Covid, sadly.
An update on the outbreak in this care home. At this moment, 7 of the 28 patients have passed sadly, and two more are severely ill. We know now that the infection was with a variant that originated in Colombia and hasn't has received the Greek variant name yet. Scientists are not sure if this variant is more deadly, or if the high count is simply due to the fact that these were all elderly patients with a lot of severe underlying conditions.
This is the reason we still need to be very prudent with the frail people around us, even if fully vaxxed.
13 -
I'm so very sorry, that is desperate the Colombian variant in a care home.
Here the care home a family member needs to be in is closed to visitors because three staff members are down with assumed delta given the area and its prevalence along with the average age group of the workers though they probably are all, expected to be vaccinated. Vaccine was made available for healthcare/social care workers back in January. The rules for lockdown in residential care are 15 days of isolation after each case is diagnosed. So family visits are not permitted at all by the end of this it will be 6 weeks. So far residents are free of it. Possibly some have antibodies from the tail end of the 1918 pandemic.
Anyone who has dementia is loosing contact not only with reality but also their family, spending more time in their restricted worlds. Add in long term Tinnitus which in itself is isolating. Then add deafness say one ear because of an eardrum shattered in childhood by over zealous ear cleaning by a hospital nurse while hospitalised in a scarlet fever hospital where she lost all her belongings she took with her, favourite doll and all. The other ear has age related hearing loss for which an aid has been provided but is now lost. I am angry because no support is there to help maintain the hearing aid and no one seems to care its gone missing, nor wants to explore getting a replacement. She used to lip read but with staff wearing masks no chance of that. So you have Sensory Deprivation magnified.
When you think at 91/2 years, how much life can this person have left, days, weeks, months its hardly going to be 10 years! What of their quality of life. She now is as likely to reject family phone calls which are garbled on her side to say the least, preferring to spend time with her dolls.
Naturally I feel for kids but they are not probably going to die thinking their family does not give them a second thought. Parents can do much to lessen their burden by communicating with them. At least you have something you can do.
15 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner 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.
3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding 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. 4 -
Perhaps in some cases there were more vaxxed folks getting sick in places because they were not taking precautions thinking they were safe? Locally we had about 16% of those hospitalized vaxxed in last week's data. That to me is still a fairly high # for hospitalizations, but as we all know data can always be misleading and the media likes to slant things to their point of view. (like all of us). Delta is spreading like wildfire here in Central Tx right now. I still can't convince any unvaxxed folks to take precautions. They tell me the "death" rate is still low.
We continue to learn more and more as time goes by about this pandemic. I wonder if in a year we will get a lot better conclusions from data about vaccinations, effectivity, etc... The story about about the girls getting sick who had been vaxxed earlier and the ones who did not who were vaxxed later makes me worry for our health care workers and elderly who were some of the first to receive doses back in Dec/Jan time frame?
Of course we also can't rely on the vaccine makers because it is in their interest to promote a booster shot also.
Stay safe out there everyone!5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation 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. 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.
This 12-year-old apparently understands that wearing a mask herself is not nearly as strong protection against her bringing the virus home to her little brother as her wearing a mask and all the other kids and staff in her school wearing masks as well.
Yes there are a lot of measures that provide enhanced protection - the issue as we come out of the acute phase and move into the endemic phase is how to balance protection with a return to normalcy. Especially for children. There are going to be a lot of different opinions about that. And probably some trial an error as well.
6 -
Regarding masking: I think we've hit a point where science is clashing with implementation. Up until now, mask mandates have been based on the science of how the virus is transmitted, evolving as we learned more about the virus but still basically applicable to most of the population.
Now the science says unvaccinated people are mostly safe not wearing a mask but vaccinated people must continue. It's impossible to enforce this without going to the kind of extreme measures that would probably lead to (even more) violent demonstrations on one side or another. I just don't see a resolution.
I'm also really mad at one of my husband's coworkers. He was out sick for a couple of weeks and the company still has relaxed rules about absenteeism and can't ask why an employee called in sick. The other day he comes in still slightly coughing and announces he had covid but tests negative now, meaning he exposed a bunch of people without letting them know, my husband included (he's 71). Most of the people where my husband works still wear a mask and the majority are vaccinated, but this kind of stupidity makes me sad for the future of humanity. 12 -
Regarding masking: I think we've hit a point where science is clashing with implementation. Up until now, mask mandates have been based on the science of how the virus is transmitted, evolving as we learned more about the virus but still basically applicable to most of the population.
Now the science says unvaccinated people are mostly safe not wearing a mask but vaccinated people must continue. It's impossible to enforce this without going to the kind of extreme measures that would probably lead to (even more) violent demonstrations on one side or another. I just don't see a resolution.
I'm also really mad at one of my husband's coworkers. He was out sick for a couple of weeks and the company still has relaxed rules about absenteeism and can't ask why an employee called in sick. The other day he comes in still slightly coughing and announces he had covid but tests negative now, meaning he exposed a bunch of people without letting them know, my husband included (he's 71). Most of the people where my husband works still wear a mask and the majority are vaccinated, but this kind of stupidity makes me sad for the future of humanity.
Where does the science say that the unvaccinated are mostly safe not wearing masks? Is that a mistake in your second paragraph?9 -
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.10 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding 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."2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation 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. 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.
This 12-year-old apparently understands that wearing a mask herself is not nearly as strong protection against her bringing the virus home to her little brother as her wearing a mask and all the other kids and staff in her school wearing masks as well.
Yes there are a lot of measures that provide enhanced protection - the issue as we come out of the acute phase and move into the endemic phase is how to balance protection with a return to normalcy. Especially for children. There are going to be a lot of different opinions about that. And probably some trial an error as well.
I don't know where you are or what conditions are like there, but where I am, we are not "coming out" of anything. We just moved from moderate to substantial virus transmission levels in my area, and we're going back to mask mandates in all indoor public spaces tomorrow.
I had hoped to go have a meal in a restaurant with someone I know doesn't have a huge social support system (both of us are vaccinated) but now I don't know if I feel comfortable doing that with the increase in infections locally, and I don't know if he'll be willing to eat outside.6 -
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?4
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
- 232.5K 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